PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has ruled the City of Chester’s policy of strip searching all offenders who are charged and intended to be held in custody for any length of time was unreasonable in the case of a man arrested for public intoxication.
On May 20, U.S. District Court Judge Paul S. Diamond made the ruling in Kenard Pitney’s lawsuit against the City of Chester, using precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court case Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of City of Burlington.
Two years ago, on May 18, 2018, Pitney says he ate dinner and drove to Harrah’s Chester Casino, leaving his fiancée Quynh Tran at home with their two young children. Over several hours, he consumed three or four drinks while playing video poker and slot machine games, losing $2,000. Before leaving the casino, he called Tran on the telephone and while he believed that he shouldn’t be behind the wheel, Tran later testified that he did not sound intoxicated at the time.
After attempting to retrieve his valuables and house keys from his car and a subsequent misunderstanding with a valet and casino security, Chester police were summoned and the officers who responded to the call believed Pitney was intoxicated. They summarily arrested him for public intoxication.
Pitney was brought to Chester Police Headquarters and once it was apparent his release via Tran picking him up would not be immediate, Pitney was moved to a holding cell. There, he was subjected to a five-to-ten minute-long visual and body cavity strip search, during which the arresting officer allegedly made “derisive noises.” Shortly thereafter, Pitney was released from police custody to Tran.
Pitney later sued the City of Chester on Feb. 25, 2019 and after other claims were dropped, remaining was the plaintiff’s challenge to the City’s strip search policy, under Monell. However, the City moved for summary judgment on Oct. 13, claiming its officers had “reasonable suspicion” to strip search Pitney for contraband or weapons.
Diamond said the casino’s surveillance video confirm that Pitney was not violent or belligerent and given his warm weather casual attire, the initial search of his person conducted at the scene would have yielded contraband or weapons had Pitney possessed them.
“The totality of circumstances does not make out reasonable suspicion to strip search plaintiff. Indeed, Maher’s decision not to complete the strip search suggests he did not think plaintiff had secreted guns or drugs on his person. Because a jury could thus certainly find the absence of reasonable suspicion, I will not grant summary judgment for Chester on this ground,” Diamond said.
As to the legality of the strip search policy under Monell, Diamond also found the City came up short in this regard and did not meet the threshold of “legitimate penological interests.”
In Florence, Diamond stated, “courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.”
“In these circumstances, the need for CPD’s policy is not as evident as its potential for abuse. It is apparent that the intrusive, demeaning strip search of plaintiff did little to promote institutional security. When a non-drug summary offender has been patted down, uncovering no contraband, is neither violent nor belligerent and will be held briefly and alone in a cell, strip searching him is unreasonable,” Diamond said.
“I am acutely aware of CPD’s need to maintain a safe holding facility. Yet, CPD here seeks virtually unlimited authority to strip search all its arrestees. As the innumerable law enforcement agencies have concluded, however, the need for safety can be met fully with less extreme methods. It is undisputed that in strip searching plaintiff, CPD closely followed the City’s published policy.”
Because Diamond could not conclude as a matter of law that the policy is permissible under Florence or in line with the 4th Amendment, he denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-00799
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com