×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Strip Searches for Misdemeanor Arrestees Illegal
The court of appeals for the Seventh circuit upheld an injunction prohibiting the Racine county jail in Wisconsin from strip searching people arrested for non traffic related misdemeanors. Court affirmed an order published at: Tinetti v. Wittke, 479 F. Supp. 486 (ED WI 1979). See: Tinetti v. Wittke, 620 F.2d 161 (7th Cir. 1980).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Tinetti v. Wittke
| Year | 1980 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 620 F.2d 161 (7th Cir. 1980) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
Tinetti v. Wittke, 620 F.2d 160 (7th Cir. 04/24/1980)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 79-2442
[3] 1980, 620 F.2d 160
[4] decided: April 24, 1980.
[5] JILL TINETTI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LEE WITTKE, SHERIFF RACINE COUNTY, JANE DOE, A RACINE COUNTY MATRON WHOSE NAME IS UNKNOWN, AND COUNTY OF RACINE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANT
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 79-C-447, Robert M. Warren, Judge.
[7] Richard H. Kjeldgaard, Racine, Wis., for defendants-appellants.
[8] Terry W. Rose, Kenosha, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.
[9] Before Castle, Senior Circuit Judge, Swygert and Sprecher, Circuit Judges.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Plaintiff-appellee Jill Tinetti brought this suit challenging the constitutionality of the defendants-appellants' practice of strip-searching persons arrested for non-misdemeanor traffic offenses. The searches were conducted upon all such offenders who were detained overnight in the Racine County jail due to an unwillingness or inability to post bond before their initial appearance in court.*fn1 The searches were conducted despite the absence of any probable cause to believe that the detainees were concealing contraband or weapons on their bodies. The district court ruled that the appellants' practices violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and granted Tinetti both declaratory and injunctive relief. We affirm the judgment of the district court, which is published at 479 F. Supp. 486 (E.D.Wis.1979), and adopt the district court's Memorandum and Order as the decision of this court.
[12] Accordingly, the decision of the district court is
[13] AFFIRMED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[14] *fn1 Although the searches were discontinued in response to this lawsuit, the district court ruled that the situation was "capable of repetition yet evading review". 479 F. Supp. 486, 489 (E.D.Wis.1979). This ruling was not challenged on appeal.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 79-2442
[3] 1980, 620 F.2d 160
[4] decided: April 24, 1980.
[5] JILL TINETTI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LEE WITTKE, SHERIFF RACINE COUNTY, JANE DOE, A RACINE COUNTY MATRON WHOSE NAME IS UNKNOWN, AND COUNTY OF RACINE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANT
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 79-C-447, Robert M. Warren, Judge.
[7] Richard H. Kjeldgaard, Racine, Wis., for defendants-appellants.
[8] Terry W. Rose, Kenosha, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.
[9] Before Castle, Senior Circuit Judge, Swygert and Sprecher, Circuit Judges.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Plaintiff-appellee Jill Tinetti brought this suit challenging the constitutionality of the defendants-appellants' practice of strip-searching persons arrested for non-misdemeanor traffic offenses. The searches were conducted upon all such offenders who were detained overnight in the Racine County jail due to an unwillingness or inability to post bond before their initial appearance in court.*fn1 The searches were conducted despite the absence of any probable cause to believe that the detainees were concealing contraband or weapons on their bodies. The district court ruled that the appellants' practices violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and granted Tinetti both declaratory and injunctive relief. We affirm the judgment of the district court, which is published at 479 F. Supp. 486 (E.D.Wis.1979), and adopt the district court's Memorandum and Order as the decision of this court.
[12] Accordingly, the decision of the district court is
[13] AFFIRMED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[14] *fn1 Although the searches were discontinued in response to this lawsuit, the district court ruled that the situation was "capable of repetition yet evading review". 479 F. Supp. 486, 489 (E.D.Wis.1979). This ruling was not challenged on appeal.