Meeks v. City of Minneapolis, 822 F. Supp. 2d 919

On March 25, 2009, at approximately 2:30 a.m., off-duty Minneapolis Officers David O’Connor and Daniel Anderson stopped Plaintiff for a purported speed limit violation while patrolling the Little Earth Housing Complex.
The officers smelled marijuana from the vehicle, asked Plaintiff for identification and insurance, and returned to their squad to run a license check before proceeding.
After the license check, O’Connor had Plaintiff step out of the vehicle and conducted a pat-down search, focusing on Plaintiff’s outer clothing and buttock area; he claimed to feel a hard bulge in that region.
Plaintiff was handcuffed and escorted to the squad car; O’Connor then pulled down Plaintiff’s pants, exposing his buttocks, and conducted a strip search on a public street with the squad car lights activated.
During the strip search, tissue protruded from Plaintiff’s anus and O’Connor retrieved tissue while Anderson watched; marijuana nuggets were later retrieved by the officers.
Plaintiff asserts Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a battery claim against the Officers and the City, and moves for partial summary judgment on the § 1983 claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the on-street strip search violated the Fourth Amendment	Plaintiff argues the strip search was unreasonable and unlawfully intrusive on a public street.	Defendant contends exigent circumstances justified a strip search due to a possible weapon.	Unreasonable Fourth Amendment strip search; violation found.
Whether exigent circumstances justified the strip search	No exigency existed to warrant a public strip search.	Exigency arose from belief Plaintiff concealed a weapon.	No exigency; strip search not justified.
Whether a less intrusive reach-in search could have sufficed	A less intrusive reach-in search should have been used to locate possible contraband.	A reach-in search was not adequately considered or implemented in this case.	Less intrusive reach-in could have accomplished objective; strip search deemed unconstitutional.

Campbell v. Miller, 499 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2007) (intrusive public strip searches condemned; need for exigent circumstances)
United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes strip search from permissible reach-in search; privacy protections)
Starks v. City of Minneapolis, 6 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (D. Minn. 1998) (reaches issues of reach-in search vs. strip search and weapon concealment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video depiction of facts controlling court's view for summary judgment)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (exigency requirement for searches; limits on warrantless intrusions)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (balancing test for reasonableness of searches and privacy interests)