PHILADELPHIA – A man arrested for public intoxication who was subsequently strip-searched by the Chester Police Department is looking to certify his lawsuit as class action litigation, according to a recent filing.
On May 18, 2018, Kenard Pitney said 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.
U.S. District Court Judge Paul S. Diamond later said the casino’s surveillance video confirms 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.”
On May 20, Diamond 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, using precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court case Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of City of Burlington.
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.
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.
On June 9, counsel for both Pitney and the City agreed via mutual stipulation to drop several counts from the former’s suit.
“All claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 premised on alleged violations of the 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, all claims for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, Count Two (supplemental state law claims) and all claims for punitive damages are dismissed with prejudice,” the stipulation said.
Additionally, the final sentence of Paragraph 10 of the amended complaint now reads, “The proposed class includes persons who were strip searched on or after Feb. 25, 2017 and extends to the date on which the City of Chester and the Chester Police Department are enjoined and/or cease to strip-search the class of persons referred to above.”
The City also filed an answer to the amended complaint on June 9, denying its allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses, including statute of limitations, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and failure to mitigate damages, among others.
UPDATE
Counsel for the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the case as a class action on Sept. 16.
“This lawsuit, originally filed as an individual action, was later amended with permission of the Court to include claims of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals who have each been subjected to unlawful strip searches as a result of defendant’s unconstitutional policy,” the motion reads, in part.
“Plaintiff now seeks class certification for all individuals charged with summary and misdemeanor offenses, who were victims of the defendant’s unconstitutional strip search policy.”
The plaintiff’s counsel argues that at the center of this case lies defendant’s longstanding unconstitutional strip search policy.
“Over 25 years ago, the City of Chester adopted its unconstitutional strip search policy and has been subjecting detainees placed in holding cells to these illegal, humiliating and degrading violations, without exception, for the ensuing decades. Not a moment’s consideration was given to whether the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify each specific strip search even existed,” the motion stated.
“This invasive and demeaning body-cavity search was and still is indiscriminately performed on every individual who is to be placed into one of the CPD’s holding cells, irrespective of reasonable suspicion or the fact that defendant’s holding cells do not qualify as a general prison population under Florence and its progeny.”
The plaintiff says the common course of action taken by the defendant and legal issues suffered by the plaintiffs make a class action the preferred way to proceed.
“Here, there is a common course of conduct by defendant in adopting and applying a policy of strip searching all detainees, without regard to the constitutional prerequisite of reasonable suspicion before undertaking a strip search,” per the motion.
“The same core evidence will be introduced to prove defendant’s unconstitutional conduct for every class member. The legal issues, i.e., whether defendant’s strip search policy violates the 4th Amendment rights of class members, are indistinguishable. Accordingly, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter.”
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