Sheriff Ordered to Reinstate Contractors’ Security Clearances to Remedy Retaliation for Blanket Strip-Search Litigation
Sheriff Ordered to Reinstate Contractors’ Security Clearances to Remedy Retaliation for Blanket Strip-Search Litigation
A Virginia federal district court ordered a sheriff to reinstate the security clearances of six contractors after it found the Sheriff retaliated against them for filing a lawsuit challenging blanket strip searches.
Portsmouth County Sheriff Bill Watson and his internal affairs division received anonymous informant tips that implicated contract medical and food service workers in bringing contraband into the jail. Based upon that information, Watson issued a blanket order on April 21, 2011 to strip search all incoming contractors. Eleven contractors were subject to such searches the next day.
A year later, nine of those contractors filed separate civil rights complaints in federal court alleging that the blanket strip searches violated their Fourth Amendment rights. The next business day, Watson issued a second blanket order and revoked the jail security clearances of the six plaintiffs who still worked as contractors at the jail.
Those six plaintiffs amended their suits to include a claim alleging Frist Amendment retaliation. The district court consolidated all nine suits but it severed the Fourth and First Amendment claims.
The Fourth Amendment claim proceeded to a jury trial. The jury concluded that the defendants had reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify strip searches of seven of the nine plaintiffs, who worked for Aramark of Correct Care Solutions, but it found there was no such suspicion for the other two plaintiffs. The jury further concluded that all nine plaintiffs voluntarily consented to be strip searched. Based upon the jury’s unanimous findings, no monetary damages were awarded.
The Court conducted a separate bench trial on the First Amendment claim. The Court found the motivating factor behind the lawsuit was to ensure that the events never happened to anyone again. The form of speech was public via the lawsuit and contact with the media.
Watson candidly testified that he felt “betrayed” when he heard about the lawsuits, and that they pushed him “over the edge.” The court also found the loss of the security clearances constituted the loss of a valuable benefit, for without clearance the plaintiffs lost their jobs. Several plaintiffs were left without any income for a period of time as a result. Watson also testified that reinstating the clearance was “not a problem.”
After finding the plaintiffs met the threshold of the grant of the injunction, the court granted them relief and ordered Watson to reinstate their security clearances. On July 23, 2013, the district court awarded $23,743 in attorney fees to the plaintiffs. See: Vollette v. Watson, Case: 2:12-CV231, USDC (E.D. Va. 2012).
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
Vollette v. Watson
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Case: 2:12-CV231, USDC (E.D. Va. 2012) |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 23,743.00 |
| Injunction Status | Granted |