Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 86
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Byrd, a pretrial detainee, was subjected to a cross-gender strip/partial-strip search of his genital area in a Durango Jail day room.
- The search was conducted by a female cadet with others present; several dozen cadets and officers were in the day room, with at least one videotaping the search.
- No emergency justified the search; it followed fights and suspicions of contraband in the housing unit.
- District court held O'Connell liable on some theories and granted judgment as a matter of law for Peterson, O'Connell's supervisor, and Arpaio on others; Byrd's equal protection claim was dismissed.
- On en banc review, the Ninth Circuit majority reversed as to the Fourth Amendment claim, holding the cross-gender search unreasonable; the substantive due process and equal protection rulings remained subject to discussion, with the district court’s rulings largely upheld aside from the Fourth Amendment reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cross-gender strip search of Byrd violated the Fourth Amendment | Byrd argues cross-gender search was unreasonable and degrading. | County argues search was justified by security needs and conducted as a routine pat-down within policy. | Unreasonable as a matter of law; reversed. |
| Whether Byrd's substantive due process claim was viable | Search was punishment or arbitrary, unrelated to legitimate objectives. | Search served legitimate security objectives; no punitive intent shown. | District court's denial of due process claim affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (four-factor test for reasonableness of prison searches)
- Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1985) (pat-downs by opposite-sex officers may be constitutional when no intimate contact occurs)
- Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1988) (privacy interests of inmates; cross-gender issues context)
- Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 1997) (emphasizes reasonableness assessment in prison searches)
- Cookish v. Powell, 945 F.2d 441 (1st Cir. 1991) (emergency context and cross-gender visual body cavity searches)