By Jan Hefler
The Philadelphia Inquirer
BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ — Burlington County has violated a New Jersey law that prohibits strip searches in minor-offense cases unless there is a reasonable suspicion that weapons, drugs, or other contraband are being concealed, a federal judge decided last month in a case filed seven years ago, before the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue.
Now, more than 10,000 detainees who were strip-searched at Burlington’s jails over the years - despite minor offenses such as failure to pay traffic fines or child support - are expected to be certified as a class and may qualify for damages that could total millions.
U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, who sits in Camden, said during a March 26 hearing that “there appears to be a large number of individuals who were strip searched . . . in violation of the state statute during the time period identified in the proposed class,” according to the court transcript.
The class, which still must be defined by the judge after further argument, is expected to cover a nine-year period between January 2004 and December 2012 when the county had a blanket policy of strip-searching every detainee.
The case stems from a class-action complaint that was filed with the District Court on behalf of Tammy Marie Haas and Conrad Szcpaniak. The two contend they suffered psychological and other harm after they were ordered to disrobe and be subjected to close visual searches by corrections officers after their separate arrests for failure to make child-support payments.
In 2007, Camden County settled a similar class-action lawsuit for $7.5 million. Two years later, Gloucester County reached a $4 million settlement and Philadelphia settled a $5.9 million suit with inmates. Other class-action suits in Atlantic and Ocean Counties are pending.
The issue of how to balance the rights of inmates and detainees with the prison system’s need to maintain order in the jails has been debated in courts across the country for years, and reached the Supreme Court in 2012.
In the case of Albert Florence v. the County of Burlington, the high court upheld a 2010 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia that decided the county’s strip-search policy did not violate the rights of Florence. The Bordentown resident was strip-searched in 2005 after he was arrested on a warrant for failing to pay a fine issued on a charge of eluding a police officer.
After the court split 5-4, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, saying corrections officials may strip-search anyone who is arrested - even for minor offenses and without any reasonable suspicion of contraband - before admitting that person into a jail. He said corrections officers must be allowed to conduct these searches in order to prevent weapons and drugs from being smuggled into jails and to control the spread of disease.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said the searches were “an affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be only used when the charges are serious and there’s reason to believe contraband is present.
After the Florence case was dismissed, county lawyers declared a victory, saying the need for safety and security in the jails outweighed Florence’s claims that his rights were violated.
But the Haas case, which was filed separately, survived.
The county’s lawyers argued the Haas case should be dismissed too, saying the Supreme Court decision had made the case “futile.” But Haas’ attorneys contended their clients were an exception.
Haas was arrested in 2006 on a warrant that said she had failed to pay $900 in child support. Nine months pregnant, Haas was strip-searched at the county’s Minimum Security Facility in Pemberton and ordered to take a shower. She also was sprayed with a delousing agent despite her “late-term pregnancy,” according to the suit filed by attorneys Carl D. Poplar, of Cherry Hill, and William A. Riback, of Haddonfield.
Neither attorney returned calls for comment.
Evan H.C. Crook and Michelle L. Corea, who were hired as special counsel to defend the county, also did not return calls.
Haas’ lawyers argued the Supreme Court decision did not apply to her case because she was not being admitted to the jail. Unlike Florence, who was kept several days, Haas was placed in a holding area and released “within hours” after her mother-in-law made the child-support payment.
Haas had questioned whether the strip search was necessary but was told “it was policy,” the court documents said. She also was told to “bend over, cough and spread her buttocks,” the suit said, and the warrant was later determined to be in error.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider ruled that the Haas case could proceed.
When the county appealed, Hillman upheld the decision. In a written 2013 opinion, Hillman said “eight of the nine Justices . . . did not endorse an across-the-board rule that it is constitutional to strip search all persons after they are arrested.”
Haas’ lawyers also argued that New Jersey was one of 10 states that have laws prohibiting strip searches unless there is reasonable suspicion of contraband.
Last month, Hillman ruled on this issue, granting the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion by finding Burlington has been violating this state law. A written opinion, he said, will follow. The state law, he said, is “plain on its face” and clearly bars blanket strip searches.
Hillman said this finding may make it unnecessary for him to decide whether Haas’ constitutional rights were violated. “The New Jersey strip-search statute . . . provides greater protection than is afforded by the Fourth Amendment,” he said.
Burlington modified its strip-search policy in late 2012, years after the state attorney general issued guidelines limiting the practice. The attorney general also issued an opinion saying the Supreme Court decision would not affect the state’s more restrictive law.
Now, anyone brought to the county jails in Mount Holly and Pemberton is not searched unless there is a warrant, a voluntary consent, or if an officer determines there is a reasonable suspicion that the detainees may possess contraband.