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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT