San Francisco Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Jail Strip Searches
San Francisco Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Jail Strip Searches
In March 2013, San Francisco agreed to settle a decade-old class action lawsuit by pre-arraignment arrestees challenging the sheriff’s department’s strip-search policy. In exchange for a lump sum payment of $450,000, the class members agreed to a dismissal of their complaint with prejudice, with no admission of liability on the part of San Francisco.
The lawsuit arose after Mary Bull, a political activist, was arrested, along with other anti-war demonstrators, in November 2002. Charged with vandalism, Bull was subjected to a strip search pursuant to a policy initiated by then-Sheriff Michael Hennessey.
Under the policy, which was implemented in an effort to combat the introduction of contraband into San Francisco’s jails, every arrestee was strip-searched, regardless of the nature/seriousness of the charges lodged.
Bull filed suit in federal court, along with other arrestees, alleging that San Francisco’s blanket policy violated their Fourth Amendment rights insofar as it permitted jail officials to conduct invasive strip searches without reasonable (individualized) suspicion that an arrestee was concealing contraband.
In 2004, in response to the suit, Sheriff Hennessey changed the policy. Under the revised policy, which remains in effect today, deputies may strip search persons arrested for minor offenses only if they have reason to believe that the arrestee is in possession of contraband.
In 2010, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled prior circuit precedent and held that San Francisco’s blanket strip-search policy was reasonably related to the jail’s legitimate penological interests in maintaining safety and security by preventing contraband smuggling, and hence was not unconstitutional. [See PLN article about Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F. 3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).]
The controversy over jail strip-search policies eventually reached the Supreme Court. In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012), a 5-4 majority of the Court held that strip searches conducted by county jails in New Jersey as a standard part of the intake process struck a reasonable balance between the privacy interests of detainees, on the one hand, and the security interests of the institutions, on the other hand—even for minor offenses.
In the face of the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court rulings, it seems remarkable that the plaintiffs in Bull succeeded in gaining any monetary consideration at all. The settlement was approved by the court on June 28, 2013. See: Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, U.S.D.C., Case No. 3:03-CV-01840-CRB
Additional source: www.sfexaminer.com
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 cases
Bull v. City and County of San Francisco
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | U.S.D.C., Case No. 3:03-CV-01840-CRB |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Settlement |
| Damages | 450,000.00 |
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
| Year | 2012 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) |
| Level | Supreme Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
Bull v. City and County of San Francisco
| Year | 2010 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 595 F. 3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Appeals Court Edition | F.3d |