Mabry Ex Rel. T.M. v. Lee County
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3092
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- T.M., a 12-year-old middle school student, was arrested on school property after a fight and taken to the Lee County Juvenile Detention Center pursuant to probable cause authorized by a Youth Court designee.
- Center intake policy required metal-wand scan and pat-down for all juveniles; juveniles charged with violent, theft, or drug offenses placed into general population were subject to a visual strip-and-cavity search.
- At the Center, a female officer performed the metal-wand and pat-down (finding nothing) and then conducted a private visual strip-and-cavity search of T.M.; no touching occurred and no contraband was found.
- T.M. was held briefly, placed into general population, released that evening, and ultimately not prosecuted; her mother Mabry sued the County alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The district court granted the County’s motions for partial summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim; Mabry appealed solely on the Fourth Amendment issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florence (deferential penological-interest test) or Safford (reasonable suspicion and narrower scope for minors) governs strip-and-cavity searches of juveniles in detention intake | Mabry: Safford should apply because the arrestee was a minor and minors’ privacy interests and vulnerability require greater protection | County: Florence controls because juvenile detention centers raise the same security concerns as adult facilities and Florence’s reasoning and language encompass other detention facilities | Held: Florence applies to juvenile detention intake searches; courts should defer to correctional officials’ expertise and place burden on plaintiff to show the policy is exaggerated |
| Whether the Center’s strip-and-cavity search of T.M. violated the Fourth Amendment under Florence | Mabry: The search was unreasonable; Florence should not control and she challenges the policy’s scope | County: The search followed routine intake policy reasonably related to penological interests | Held: Mabry failed to present substantial evidence that the policy was an exaggerated or irrational response; summary judgment for County affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (balancing test for reasonableness of searches in correctional facilities)
- Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (strip-searches of students require reasonable suspicion and intrusiveness limited by age/sex/nature of infraction)
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (deferential Turner-style review in correctional intake: policies upheld if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- J.B. ex rel. Benjamin v. Fassnacht, 801 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2015) (Third Circuit holding Florence governs juvenile intake strip searches)