Rattray v. Woodbury Cnty.

MAUREEN RATTRAY, LISA LAMBERT,and LORI MATHES, Plaintiffs,

v.WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA, Defendant.

No. C 07-4014-MWB

No. C 08-4008-MWB

No. C 08-4032-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

DATED: December 10, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 3

A. Factual Background ............................................................... 3

B. Procedural Background ........................................................... 5

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 7

A. Reconsideration Of Summary Judgment In Rattray’s Favor ............... 8

1. Arguments of the parties .................................................. 8

2. Reconsideration standards .............................................. 10

3. Analysis .................................................................... 13

a. The basis for summary judgment in Rattray’s case ....... 13

b. The decision in Florence ....................................... 16

c. The effect of Florence on the controlling legal rule ...... 23

B. Consideration Of Summary Judgment In The County’s Favor .......... 29

1. Arguments of the parties ................................................ 30

2. Summary judgment standards ......................................... 32

3. “No reasonable suspicion” claims .................................... 33

4. “Manner” claims ......................................................... 38

a. Rattray’s “manner” claim ...................................... 39

b. Mathes’s “manner” claim ...................................... 41

c. Lambert’s “manner” claim .................................... 43

5. Summary ................................................................... 45C. Reconsolidation Of Trials ....................................................... 45

D. Certification For Interlocutory Appeal ....................................... 46

1. Certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) .................................. 46

2. Certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)...................... 50

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 52

In these consolidated cases, the plaintiffs assert that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when they were strip searched without reasonable suspicion that they were carrying contraband, upon being booked into the county jail. These cases are back before me on the defendant county's motions for reconsideration of a prior order granting summary judgment in one plaintiff's favor on her claim and seeking summary judgment in the county's favor on all of the plaintiffs' claims in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012). In Florence, the Supreme Court held that every detainee, even one held on a non-indictable offense, who will be admitted to the jail's "general population" may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed without reasonable suspicion that the detainee is hiding contraband. The county argues that, by reasonable extension, Florence bars the claims of the plaintiffs, because the undisputed facts show that they were likely to have substantial contact with other detainees during their temporary detention, even if they were not admitted to "general population" per se. The plaintiffs argue that Florence is inapplicable, because none of the plaintiffs were admitted to "general population" in the jail, so that circuit precedent requiring reasonable suspicion to strip search detainees still prevails in their circumstances.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

As is my usual practice, I set forth here only those facts, disputed and undisputed, sufficient to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the defendant's motions for summary judgment. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts recited here are undisputed, at least for purposes of summary judgment. I will discuss additional factual allegations, and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material, if necessary, in my legal analysis.

In the early morning hours of August 19, 2006, Maureen Rattray, the original plaintiff in this action, was arrested on a serious misdemeanor charge of operating while intoxicated - first offense, in violation of IOWA CODE § 321J.2. She was taken to the Woodbury County Jail, where she was strip searched in accordance with a then-existing jail policy that required all persons booked on charges of a serious misdemeanor or greater to be strip searched. The strip search was not based on any reasonable suspicion analysis of whether Rattray might be carrying contraband. Rattray contends that the strip search involved more than a visual body inspection, as it included improper touching and other aggravating circumstances that were not part of the jail policy. After the strip search, Rattray was escorted to a temporary holding cell under what she also argues were aggravating circumstances. At no time did Rattray share a cell with any other detainee, nor was she ever admitted to the jail's "general population." This was so, because detainees were not admitted to the jail's "general population" during the first twenty-four hours of their detention. On the morning of August 19, 2006, several hours after her arrest, Rattray was shackled with other detainees and escorted to court for an initial appearance and arraignment before a magistrate judge. The trip to court was Rattray's only interaction with other detaineesduring her detention. Rattray was released from jail on August 19, 2006, soon after her arraignment.

Plaintiffs Lisa Lambert and Lori Mathes, the plaintiffs in additional actions consolidated with Rattray's, were also arrested on serious misdemeanor charges. Lambert was arrested on March 17, 2007, on a charge listed on her booking sheet as serious domestic assault. Mathes was arrested on May 7, 2007, on a charge of possession of marijuana. Like Rattray, both were taken to the Woodbury County Jail for booking and both were strip searched pursuant to the then-existing jail policy. Neither strip search was based on any reasonable suspicion analysis of whether either might be carrying contraband. The parties dispute whether Lambert and Mathes were subjected only to visual body inspections, or to visual cavity searches, and other circumstances of the strip searches. During the search of Lambert, officers discovered a small knife. Lambert and Mathes were taken to temporary holding cells after the searches.

The County contends, and the plaintiffs dispute, that detainees may potentially be housed with other detainees upon their initial admission to the jail; that it is not uncommon for detainees to be "doubled up" in a holding cell, depending on the number of arrests that have occurred during the period of detention; and that the need to house detainees with other detainees can change rapidly, because of the limited number of holding cells at the jail. Like Rattray, Mathes never shared a holding cell with another detainee, and neither Lambert nor Mathes was ever admitted to the "general population" at the jail, because neither was held for more than twenty-four hours. However, in their briefing, the County contends, and Lambert admits, that she shared a holding cell with other detainees (at least two, and possibly "several") during the night. The parties agree that, like Rattray, Mathes was handcuffed with other detainees (in Mathes's case, eight other detainees) when she was transported to court for her initialappearance. The parties have not indicated in their respective statements of fact whether Lambert was handcuffed with other detainees for transportation to court for her initial appearance. Like Rattray, Lambert and Mathes were both released shortly after their arraignments—in Lambert's case, the day after her arrest, and in Mathes's case, the same day as her arrest.

B. Procedural Background

The procedural history for this case is long and convoluted. Some of it has been addressed in prior published rulings. See Rattray v. Woodbury Cnty., Iowa, 253 F.R.D. 444 (N.D. Iowa 2008) (denying class certification after consolidation of separate actions by plaintiffs Rattray, Mathes, and Lambert, and assertion of class claims), aff'd, 614 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2010); Rattray v. Woodbury Cnty., Iowa, 754 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (N.D. Iowa 2010) (granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment). Suffice it to say, for present purposes, that the plaintiffs asserted claims that their strip searches without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that I declined to certify the action as a class action on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons. However, I did grant summary judgment in plaintiff Rattray's favor on her claim of liability for violating her rights, and severed her damages claim for a separate trial before the trial of Lambert's and Mathes's liability and damages claims.

In the midst of preparations for Rattray's damages trial, the parties agreed to dismissal of the claims against the individual defendants, so that Rattray's claims proceeded to trial only against the County. A jury awarded Rattray substantial damages on her claim on January 20, 2011, see Verdict Form (docket no. 132); Amended Verdict Form (docket no. 133), but, owing to seriously problematic circumstancessurrounding the jury's damages awards, I granted the County's Motion For New Trial (docket no. 144) by Order (docket no. 147), filed March 7, 2011.

This case was then stayed during the pendency, before the Supreme Court, of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 621 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed,...