Class Action Attorney Fee Digest Blawg

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:44:11 -0500

Wishing you all the best for the new year.

Circuit Round-up of Strip Search Cases

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:43:34 -0500

Relying on the Memorandum in Boone v. City of Philadelphia, No. 2:05-cv-01851-MAM (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2009), we reproduce Judge McLaughlin’s citations to cases from the Courts of Appeals concerning blanket strip-search policies of pre-trial detainees and their ruling:
1st – Roberts v. Rhode Island, 239 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2001) – unconstitutional.
2nd – Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020 (1987) – unconstitutional, but okay for certain groups of detainees.
3rd – No ruling.
4th – Logan v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942 (1982) – unconstitutional.
5th – Stewart v. County of Lubbock, 767 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1066 (1986) – unconstitutional.
6th – Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248, 1255 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 977 (1989) – unconstitutional, but okay for certain groups of detainees.
7th – Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1983) – unconstitutional, but okay for certain groups of detainees.
8th – Jones v. Edwards, 770 F.2d 739 (8th Cir. 1985) – unconstitutional.
9th – Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 539 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2008), rehearing en banc granted, 558 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2009), reconsidering line of cases: Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1989); Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 901 F.2d 702, 711 (9th Cir. 1989), Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1984), overruled on other grounds by Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc).
10th – Hill v. Bogans, 735 F.2d 391 (10th Cir. 1984) – unconstitutional.
11th – Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) – constitutional (overruling Wilson v. Jones, 251 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2001)). The court in Powell held that a blanket strip-search policy for all arrestees can be constitutional under Bell, under the theory that “the Bell balancing test allows for the interest of prison security to outweigh the individual privacy interests of detainees, regardless of whether there is reasonable suspicion that the particular arrestee is concealing weapons or contraband” (from Boone Memorandum, at 14).

Strip Search Policies: What is the Test?

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:14:58 -0500

In tracking class action attorneys fees, we have been reporting on civil rights cases that challenge county jail strip-search policies, particularly for those detainees arrested on non-VDW offenses (violence, drugs, weapons).

Judge McLaughlin recently approved a settlement and attorney fees in such a case, Boone v. City of Philadelphia, No. 2:05-cv-01851-MAM (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2009) (see 3 Class Action Att’y Fee Dig. 450 (Nov. 2009)). In her memorandum option, Judge McLaughlin provided an extensive summary of the law regarding blanket strip search policy:

The Supreme Court has held that a court must analyze a prison’s strip-search policy under the Fourth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). In Bell, a federal short term custodial facility had a policy to strip-search all pretrial detainees after a contact visit with an outside visitor. The Court found that, under the circumstances, the strip-searches conducted under the policy were not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 559.

In determining the reasonableness of a prison’s search policy, the Bell Court held that courts must balance the prison’s significant and legitimate interests in safety and security with the privacy interests of the individuals. See id. at 559-60. It presented four factors for a court to consider in that balance: (1) the scope of the particular intrusion; (2) the manner in which it is conducted; (3) the justification for initiating it; and (4) the place in which it is conducted. See id. at 559.

Boone, Memorandum, at 12.

The holding in Bell was limited to the specific policy in question and left open the question of whether reasonable suspicion must be established to justify a policy to strip-search all incoming inmates or pretrial detainees. According to Judge McLaughlin, ten Circuit Courts of Appeal have addressed the issue. In the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, the courts have interpreted Bell to require reasonable suspicion that a particular arrestee is concealing weapons or other contraband before conducting a strip-search. The cases in the Second, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits also concluded that Bell “allows such reasonable suspicion to be established categorically for certain groups of prison detainees, such as those charged with felonies or violent or drug-related misdemeanors.” Id. at 13-14.

According to Judge McLauglin, the Eleventh Circuit has recently overruled its previous decision and now holds that “a blanket strip-search policy for all arrestees can be constitutional under Bell.” Id. at 14. In addition, the Ninth Circuit is reconsidering a line of cases on strip-searches.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule on this issue.

We will report the case citations next.

Strip-search class actions on the rise?

Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:34:25 -0500

We have noticed a steady stream of strip-search cases around the country. Over the past three years, we have reported on 20 class action fee awards that involve civil rights claims. Of those, 14 challenged strip search policies.

Generally, plaintiffs challenged certain written and unwritten policies at county jails whereby individuals who were detained for offenses that did not involve violence, drugs, or weapons (known as non-VDW offenses) were subjected to intrusive strip searches without reasonable suspicion that those individuals possessed hidden contraband or otherwise posed a threat.

The cases come from federal courts across the country. We have reported one from the First Circuit, five from the Third Circuit, two from the Sixth Circuit, one from the Eighth Circuit, three from the Ninth Circuit, and two from the Tenth Circuit.

The cases appear to have increased. We reported on one fee award issued in 2007, five fee awards issued in 2008, and eight fee awards issued in 2009 so far.

The settlement benefits have ranged from $205,000 to over $25 million. The attorney's fees, as a percentage of the settlement, have ranged from 22% to 50%, with 10 cases awarding 30% or higher. Generally, the settlements also reflected a change in policy at the jail.

Happy Thanksgiving

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:07:26 -0500

Wishing you and your families all the best.