Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia

URBAN POLICING

AMICUS BRIEF CHALLENGES BLANKET STRIP SEARCH POLICY IN NJ PRISONS
January 19, 2010 - the Law Center’s Jennifer Clarke and Christopher Sousa filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, a lawsuit challenging the shocking strip searching policies of certain New Jersey jails. The Law Center submitted the brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, a social justice organization founded in 1787, and in conjunction with David Rudovsky, of Kaiyrs, Rudovsky, Messing, & Feinberg LLP. The blanket strip searching policies of the Burlington and Essex County jails forced the plaintiff, Mr. Florence, to undergo a humiliating strip search after being arrested for a non-indictable charge of civil contempt; that arrest turned out to be based on erroneous information provided to the arresting officer. In an earlier decision granting summary judgment to Mr. Florence, the District of New Jersey ruled that these blanket policies, which call for strip searches of all arrestees, even in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is smuggling something, are unconstitutional. In doing so, the court aligned with every other Third Circuit trial court, and with almost every other federal circuit that has considered the question. Law Center Executive Director Jennifer Clarke remarked that “such blanket policies only serve to needlessly subject all arrestees to strip searches, while doing next to nothing for jail security.”

After being notified that the Eleventh Circuit recently became the first federal appellate court to find such policies constitutional, the case was certified for appeal and the Third Circuit agreed to hear it. In the amicus brief, the Law Center confronts the central, and erroneous, assumption made by the Eleventh Circuit: that there is no difference between constitutional strip searches after voluntary contact visits with friends and family, and strip searches of all persons arrested when first entering the jail facility. The Law Center also pointed to the clear consensus in the legal and social science communities regarding the dehumanizing psychological effects of those searches. Ms. Clarke said, “In ensuring the security of county jails, we should be careful in limiting the drastic impact of strip searches to those situations that actually call for it. Blanket strip search policies mean that everyone can be subject to that degrading process, for literally no reason.”
Read the Amicus Brief

LAW CENTER BRIEF PURSUADES COURT TO UPHOLD CHALLENGE TO STRIP SEARCH POLICY
In a nearly 50-page opinion issued March 24, 2009 in Allison v. The GEO Group, Inc., No. 08-467, Judge Jan E. DuBois of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reaffirmed the right of persons detained in prisons and jails to be free from unreasonable strip searches. The Court refused to dismiss a class action brought by detainees seeking to halt a policy implemented in the jails and prisons operated by defendant The GEO Group, Inc. Under the challenged policy, every person booked into jail or prison is subjected to the humiliation of a strip search – even if there is no reason to believe the person is concealing contraband in a body cavity, and no matter how minor the crime or misdemeanor for which the person was arrested or detained. For example, one of the named plaintiffs was strip searched after being arrested on a bench warrant that arose from a misunderstanding. The other named plaintiff was also strip searched after being arrested on a bench warrant, and then, when serving a fifteen-weekend sentence for a DUI conviction, was strip-searched every weekend in front of other inmates as she entered the facility to serve her sentence.

In his ruling, Judge DuBois followed the holdings of trial and appellate courts across the country that have found such blanket strip search policies unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which permits only “reasonable” searches. Guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), these courts have held that the police or jail must have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is concealing contraband in order to conduct a strip search. A “reasonable suspicion” could arise, for instance, from the circumstances of the arrest or a prior criminal record. Defendant The GEO Group, Inc., brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on a recent Eleventh Circuit en banc decision holding that such blanket policies do not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning, which was based on an unprecedented interpretation of Bell v. Wolfish. The Law Center drafted the brief in response to the defendant’s motion, in collaboration with David Rudovsky of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg LLP; Joseph G. Sauder and Benjamin F. Johns of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP; Christopher G. Hayes; and Daniel C. Levin of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman.
Read the Complaint
Read the Court's Opinion

History of the Urban Policing Project

During the 1970s, the Law Center was perhaps best known for its impact on police practices. Leading a powerful coalition of community organizations, the Law Center focused public attention on egregious civil rights and civil liberties violations which were then commonplace in the Philadelphia Police Department. The coalition sought greater accountability for police abuses, leading to the adoption of regulations governing the use of deadly force by the Philadelphia Police Department. Civilian deaths and injuries dropped subsequently from 62 in 1977 to a total of 2 in 1984. New police discipline policies were adopted, and the Law Center trained a police abuse bar to provide victims with competent representation.

This effort continued in the 1980s when the Law Center led a powerful coalition of community organizations that included the NAACP and the Black Clergy in successfully urging City Council to appoint a civilian Police Advisory Board to monitor police practices in Philadelphia.