Roadhouse v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 290 F.R.D. 535

LVMPD operates the Clark County Detention Center and transports arrestees to CCDC for booking; some arrestees are released on recognizance or bail, while others proceed to holding and are strip searched.
Plaintiff was arrested on misdemeanor charges, admitted to CCDC, and subjected to a full visual body-cavity strip search; he alleges others could view him during the search.
Plaintiff asserts violations of the Fourth Amendment and Nevada Constitution Article I, Section 18, due to lack of reasonable suspicion and group viewing during the search.
Plaintiff seeks to certify two proposed classes: (a) group strip searches of two or more detainees, and (b) suspicionless strip searches upon admission to general population.
Court previously stayed and denied class certification as moot; Florence v. Burlington County later influenced the ruling on suspicionless searches.
Court denies plaintiff’s class certification, grants partial summary judgment for defendant on pleadings, and declines to recognize a Nevada-constitutional right to a suspicionless strip search; case to proceed toward settlement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nevada Constitution claim viability after Florence	Nevada courts may recognize broader rights under Article I, §18 beyond the federal Constitution.	Florence forecloses a federal-like right to suspicionless strip searches; Nevada may expand rights but not create this right here.	Nevada §18 claim dismissed; no new Nevada constitutional right recognized at pleadings stage.
Enabling statute to pursue state constitutional rights	State enabling statute may permit redress for violations of state rights.	Court need not decide enabling statute issue since it declines to create a new right.	Issue deemed unnecessary to resolve; the court declines to recognize a new Nevada constitutional right.
Class certification for group strip search class	Group class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) due to common policy violations.	No predominance or superiority; evidence shows individualized issues and partitions prevented group searches.	Group strip search class not certified under Rule 23.
Suspicionless strip search class viability	Nevada constitution or federal law could support a class for suspicionless strip searches.	Florence controls; no federal right to a suspicionless search; Nevada right not recognized here.	Suspicionless class not certified; no federal or Nevada right recognized at this stage.

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (U.S. 2012) (suspicionless searches generally permissible; standard for inmate searches)
Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc Fourth Amendment protection in suspension of rights)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (class certification requires rigorous analysis under Rule 23)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (comprehensive Rule 23 analysis and settlement considerations)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (predominance standard in Rule 23(b)(3))
Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (factors for superiority and manageability in class actions)
Lopez v. Youngblood, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (group strip search cases; policy/policy adherence considerations)
Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (class action certification guidance)
Rader v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, 276 F.R.D. 524 (D. Nev. 2011) (emotional distress damages and individualized inquiries impede class certification)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2003) (duality of damages considerations in class actions)
Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) (disfavored nature of motions to strike; prejudice showing required)
State v. Bayard, 71 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2003) (Nevada state constitutional rights can be expanded beyond federal scope)