Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard, 2011 WL 1085882

Plaintiffs, peaceful protesters arrested Sept. 27, 2002, allege unconstitutional strip searches by Deputy U.S. Marshals under Dillard’s supervision at the DC Superior Court.
Dillard, as USMS head for the DC Superior Court, supervised a blanket strip-search policy for male arrestees entering the cellblock.
Policy Directive 99-25 authorized strip searches with “reasonable suspicion” based on specified factors; no individualized suspicion required if history of contraband is considered.
Plaintiffs were searched in groups after pat-downs, with no contraband found; they were later released or arraigned.
District court certified a class of male arrestees detained on minor offenses who were strip searched without individualized suspicion; it denied summary judgment to Dillard.
Majority holds that, in 2002, it was not clearly established that such blanket strip searches violated the Fourth Amendment; Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2002 law clearly established that strip searches without individualized suspicion were unconstitutional	Dillard’s policy violated Bell and circuits’ consensus	Bell allowed broad detention security; no clear issue in 2002	No; not clearly established in 2002
Whether Bell v. Wolfish controlled pre-arraignment arrestees and foreclosed blanket strip searches	Bell did not permit blanket searches of non-intrusive arrestees	Bell supported security rights; no per se rule against blanket searches	Bell did not clearly establish unconstitutionality in 2002
Whether the law was clearly established by a circuit consensus by 2002 on the reasonableness of suspicionless strip searches	Ten circuits prohibited; consensus showed unconstitutionality	Consensus existed post-2002; officials could rely on Bell	No; consensus did not clearly establish unconstitutionality in 2002
Whether post-2002 decisions can defeat qualified immunity for conduct in 2002	Post-2002 cases show misconduct	Post-2002 law cannot negate 2002 clearly established standard	Irrelevant to 2002 clearly established law; immunity affirmed

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (balancing security interests and detainee privacy in detention facilities; allows some searches without probable cause)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (establishes objective standard for qualified immunity; reasonable official should know the law)
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1999) (consensus of persuasive authority can establish clearly established law)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework; not mandatory to follow steps in order (Pearson modification))
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (clarifies that courts may address either prong first in qualified immunity)
Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008 (en banc)) (en banc held blanket search policy in general population contexts; post-2002 decision limits relevance to this case)
Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010 (en banc)) (en banc; controls scope of Bell in pre-arraignment arrestees not housed with general population)
Helton v. United States, 191 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2002) (district court recognized substantial caselaw supporting reasonableness of suspicion-based searches)
Morgan v. Barry, 596 F. Supp. 897 (D.D.C. 1984) (early DC agreement restricting strip/search practice; informed practice)
Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1984) (early rejection of broad, unfounded strip-search authority)