ILNews

Judge issues lengthy order in strip-search case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. District Court judge has issued a 91-page order in an "elaborate and expensive litigation" that began after three teenagers were stopped because their car had a broken license plate light.

After years of litigation and several orders to compel discovery, Chief Judge David Hamilton released the lengthy order Aug. 21 in Lessley, Rhodehamel, and Messer v. City of Madison, Ind., et al., No. 4:07-CV-136. The order - which included an index on each issue - ruled on the summary judgment and other pending motions filed by each side.

Kristy L. Lessley, Kara J. Rhodehamel, and Kayla M. Messer filed suit against the city of Madison, Ind., several Madison police officers, and other city officials after their car was searched, and they were patted down for drugs and eventually stripped searched in a fire station because police believed they possessed marijuana. The three were stopped for the broken license plate light, and officer Jonathon Simpson and Sgt. James Royce smelled marijuana on Kristy Lessley. The officers claim the women consented to some search of the car, their person, and the eventual strip searches at a fire station. The women, who were 18- and 19-years-old at the time, claim they weren't read their rights and did not consent.

Female officer Mika Season Jackson was called to search the women at a nearby fire station; she found marijuana in Lessley's underwear. The other two were never arrested, and the charges against Lessley were eventually dropped. The three filed their federal and state claims several months later.

On Royce's motion for summary judgment, the chief judge ruled in his favor on the seizure claims, the search of the car, and the individual liability for state law torts. Royce had probable cause to stop the car because of the broken light and had probable cause to search the car when he smelled marijuana. The pat-down of Lessley was constitutional because he smelled marijuana on her, but the pat-downs of Messer and Rhodehamel, and the strip searches of all three weren't constitutional.

"Royce has identified no case in this district, any circuit, or from the Supreme Court where a court approved a warrantless strip-search of an individual who was not under arrest, at an international border, or at a school," wrote Chief Judge Hamilton.

Although Indiana courts haven't addressed the question of whether officers have probable cause to search vehicle occupants to find drugs based on the smell of marijuana and rolling papers, that fact can't protect a police officer from section 1983 liability, wrote the chief judge.

The motions for summary judgment filed by the other officers involved were granted on the same claims as were granted for Royce and denied on the claims regarding the pat down of Messer and Rhodehamel and the strip searches.

Even though the police officers aren't individually liable for the plaintiffs' state law claims, the City of Madison was found liable as a municipality.

"The question is close on the current record of evidence, but the court concludes that plaintiffs have offered enough evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the City of Madison's failure to take appropriate corrective action in response to repeated complaints of Royce's mistreatment of civilians, particularly women, could have amounted to an unconstitutional custom," wrote Chief Judge Hamilton.

While no Indiana state courts have addressed the application of Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(8) to claims an officer assaulted or battered someone through a search and assaulted someone by making inappropriate sexual comments, the District Court ruled a municipality does not have immunity for a plaintiff's assault and battery claims stemming from allegations of excessive police force.

Turning to the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment that include on the strip-search claims and qualified immunity, the District Court denied their motions except for their motion for summary judgment on the timeliness of their tort claim notices.

Chief Judge Hamilton also granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to allow further summary judgment briefing and to re-open discovery; denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include the city's insurer; denied the appeal of the magistrate judge's order unsealing documents; sustained the magistrate judge's order granting the motion to compel; and denied the motion to strike the plaintiffs' reply to the defendants' appeal on the motion to compel.

Chief Judge Hamilton noted under Rule 37, the District Court will also order the responsible defendants to pay as a sanction the plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for reasonably necessary follow-up depositions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT