32. Pretrial detention.

U.S. District Court SEARCHES

Helton v. U.S., 191 F.Supp,2d 179 (D.D.C. 2002). Female arrestees brought an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging that United States Marshals conducted unlawful searches and invasions of their privacy. The district court held that the alleged strip search of arrestees satisfied the elements of a tort intrusion upon seclusion. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment precludes police or prison officials from conducting a strip search of an individual arrested for misdemeanors or other minor offenses, unless there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is concealing contraband or weapons. The five women plaintiffs had been arrested for unlawful entry in connection with an "anti-fur" demonstration at a department store. According to their complaint, they were compelled "to remove clothing and submit to a strip and squat search" while six men arrested with them were not subjected to such searches. (United States Marshals Service)

U.S. Appeals Court DISCIPLINE PUNISHMENT SEGREGATION

Higgins v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought a civil right action alleging due process violations and retaliation. The district court dismissed the complaint and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The district court held that issues of fact existed as to the reason for the detainee's segregation, and that the detainee's retaliation allegations sufficiently stated a claim. The appeals court was unable to determine from the record whether the detainee was placed in lockdown segregation for preventive purposes or for punishment. (Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court CONDITIONS LENGTH FAILURE TO PROTECT CROWDING

Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against a county sheriff and two jail employees, alleging confinement in unconstitutional conditions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the detainee did not suffer more than a de minimis physical injury from his jail confinement and therefore could not make the required showing for the purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). But the appeals court held that the detainee was entitled to seek nominal and punitive damages under the Fourteenth Amendment. The detainee had...