Rattray v. Woodbury Cnty.

908 F.Supp.2d 976

Maureen RATTRAY, Lisa Lambert, and Lori Mathes, Plaintiffs,

v.WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA, Defendant.

Nos. C 07–4014–MWB, C 08–4008–MWB, C 08–4032–MWB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Western Division.

Dec. 10, 2012.

Opinion Denying Reconsideration Jan. 30, 2013.

David A. O'Brien, Willey, O'Brien, LC, Cedar Rapids, IA, Jean Pendleton, Pendleton Law Firm, PC, West Des Moines, IA, Joan M. Fletcher, Megan Jill Erickson, Brant M. Leonard, Dickinson, MacKaman, Tyler & Hagen, PC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs.

Douglas L. Phillips, Deena Ann Townley, Klasslaw Firm, L.L.P., Sioux City, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                           ¦980   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦980    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Procedural Background                                     ¦981    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II.  ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                ¦983    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Reconsideration Of Summary Judgment In Rattray's Favor    ¦983    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Arguments of the parties                              ¦983   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Reconsideration standards                             ¦984   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Analysis                                              ¦986   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦a.  ¦The basis for summary judgment in Rattray's case      ¦986   ¦
+----+---+--+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦b.  ¦The decision in Florence                              ¦988   ¦
+----+---+--+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦c.  ¦The effect of Florence on the controlling legal rule  ¦992   ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.  ¦Consideration Of Summary Judgment In The County's Favor   ¦995    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Arguments of the parties                              ¦995   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Summary judgment standards                            ¦997   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦“No reasonable suspicion” claims                  ¦997   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦“Manner” claims                                   ¦1000  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Rattray's “manner” claim                      ¦1001  ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Mathes's “manner” claim                       ¦1002  ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Lambert's “manner” claim                      ¦1003  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦5.  ¦Summary                                               ¦1004  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦C.  ¦Reconsolidation Of Trials                                 ¦1004   ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦D.  ¦Certification For Interlocutory Appeal                    ¦1005   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)                  ¦1005  ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)        ¦1007  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦III.  ¦CONCLUSION                                                   ¦1008   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (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 detainees during 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...