Fonder v. Sheriff of Kankakee County
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9672
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kankakee County Sheriff had a written policy requiring strip searches (and sometimes body‑cavity searches) of every arrestee before entry into the jail general population.
- Three arrestees sued challenging the policy as applied to persons not yet judicially-approved for custody (i.e., before a probable‑cause determination).
- The district court certified a class of all persons held from April 20, 2010 through judgment who, after a warrantless arrest, were strip searched before a judicial probable‑cause determination, and then upheld the Sheriff’s policy as applied to that class.
- The district court relied heavily on Florence v. Burlington County, which upheld routine strip searches of inmates entering general population to prevent contraband, disease, and gang risks.
- Evidence in discovery revealed conflicting testimony about actual practice: some guards said inspections occur privately (behind curtains and showers), others said searches are done in public with cursory attention, and some said searches are limited to certain charges or based on arresting officers’ requests.
- The court of appeals vacated and remanded, finding material factual disputes about (a) whether the policy can be applied to arrestees not entering general population and (b) whether practice matches the written policy; class definition may need modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florence authorizes strip searches of arrestees before judicial probable‑cause when they are not necessarily going into general population | Strip searches of persons not bound for general population violate Fourth Amendment (unreasonable) | County: Florence permits searches of arrestees regardless of judicial determination; policy is reasonable as written | Court: Florence’s rationale ties to placement in general population; searches of those not entering population may not be justified — class may include persons with valid claims; remand needed |
| Whether written policy controls when actual practice differs (random/partial searches or officer‑by‑officer variation) | If practice exempts subsets or is inconsistent, Florence’s blanket‑search justification fails and practice may be unconstitutional | County: Guards follow the written policy; no deviation | Court: Evidence shows disputed material facts about practice; cannot assume written policy controls; remand/trial or stipulation required |
| Appropriateness of the district court’s class definition and preclusion of individual claims | Class counsel could not anticipate divergent practices at certification; class definition should adapt to facts; subclassing or modification may be required | County/District court: Class definition (all newly arrested strip searched pre‑probable‑cause) is proper; class waived later challenges | Court: Early class certifications are tentative; definition must yield to evidence; certification cannot preclude adjudication of actual practices |
Key Cases Cited
- Florence v. Burlington County, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (upheld routine strip searches of arrestees entering general prison population to prevent contraband, disease, and violence)
- Riverside County v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (probable‑cause hearing should generally occur within 48 hours of arrest)