Jimenez v. Wood County
660 F.3d 841
5th Cir.2011Background
- Oscar and Chandra Jimenez operated a bar in Wood County, Texas; undercover TABC agents raided on New Year’s Eve 2005, arresting Jimenez and hindering apprehension charge for Ms. Jimenez; Ms. Jimenez was strip-searched per sheriff policy; district court instructed that strip searches of minor-offense arrestees require reasonable suspicion; jury verdict for Jimenez awarded mental anguish, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees; en banc review affirmed the panel decision upholding jury instructions and rejecting County challenges.
- County argued that reasonable suspicion was not required for strip searches under Bell v. Wolfish and precedent; County failed to preserve its objection to the jury instructions under Rule 51; district court classified hindering apprehension as a minor offense as a matter of law; Court considered whether preserving error was required and whether the minor-offense rule aligns with Wolfish; panel opinion rejected County’s arguments and the en banc court affirmed.
- En banc court reinstated Parts III–V of the panel opinion addressing other issues (immunity, reasonable suspicion, and fees) and remanded as to the minor-offense rule; this opinion ultimately affirms the district court’s judgment against the County.
- The dissent argues that the majority misapplies Rule 51 waiver and that Wolfish requires a balancing analysis that could overrule the minor-offense rule; the dissent also urges reconsideration of Stewart and the minor-offense rule in light of Supreme Court precedent.
- The decision discusses Wolfish factors for reasonableness, the deference owed to corrections officials, and the split among circuits on whether reasonable suspicion is required for arrestees searched before entry into a jail population.
- The Florence, Powell, and other non-Fifth Circuit authorities are noted as contrary authorities that support abridging or overruling the Fifth Circuit’s long-held minor-offense rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable suspicion is required for strip searches of minor-offense arrestees | Jimenez contends the rule is Wolfish-consistent or overruled by others. | Wood County argues the minor-offense rule should be maintained per circuit precedent. | Not plain error; reasonable suspicion required for minor-offense arrestees is upheld (majority view). |
| Whether the district court properly classified hindering apprehension as a minor offense as a matter of law | Jimenez’s offense is a Class A misdemeanor; its minor-offense status supports the rule. | County argues classification is a matter for the court; the policy is constitutional. | District court did not err in treating hindering apprehension as a minor offense in this Fourth Amendment analysis. |
| Whether County preserved its challenge to jury instructions under Rule 51 | Rule 51 objections were properly raised; error preserved for appeal. | County failed to timely object on the precise ground; waiver applies. | Objection not timely; review limited to plain error; no plain error found regarding the reasonable-suspicion instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (balancing test for confinement searches; can justify strip searches without individualized suspicion in certain contexts)
- Stewart v. Lubbock County, 767 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1985) (established minor-offense rule requiring reasonable suspicion for strip searches)
- Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1983) (required reasonable suspicion for detainees charged with minor offenses when not dangerous)
- Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008) (en banc; upholds blanket arrestee strip searches under Wolfish balancing)
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington, 621 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2010) (upholds intake-strip searches in some contexts; focus on arrestees entering general population)
- Wolfish v. City of New York, 441 U.S. codes (1979) (premise that detention facility searches may be allowed balancing privacy vs. security interests)