472 P.3d 171
Mont.2020Background
- Lewis & Clark County Detention Center had an unwritten policy requiring an unclothed visual body-cavity "strip search" of any arrestee before placement in the facility's general population, regardless of reasonable suspicion. Searches were same-sex, conducted in private, and involved inspection of genital/anus and other areas without touching.
- Ninety-six named plaintiffs (arrested for traffic or other non-felony offenses) challenged the policy as violating Montana Constitution Art. II §§10–11 and §46-5-105, MCA; they sought class certification.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants as to 92 plaintiffs who were placed in general population, denied relief for 4 plaintiffs who were never so placed, and certified the order under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
- The Montana Supreme Court found the District Court's Rule 54(b) certification procedurally deficient but, invoking supervisory control, reached the merits because the questions were purely legal and of statewide importance.
- On the constitutional question the Court held a strip/visual body-cavity search is a search under the Montana Constitution but, balancing privacy against penological interests, upheld suspicionless searches for detainees classified for general population.
- On the statutory question the Court held §46-5-105, MCA (prohibiting strip searches of persons detained for traffic or non-felonies unless reasonable suspicion exists) unambiguously forbids suspicionless strip searches and therefore abrogates the federal rule in Florence for searches covered by the statute; the Court reversed the District Court on this point and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether blanket strip searches of detainees arrested for traffic or non-felonies before placement in general population violate Montana Constitution Art. II §§10 & 11 | Rogers: detainees retain a reasonable expectation of privacy; strip searches are degrading and unreasonable without individualized suspicion | County: detainees placed in general population have diminished privacy; searches are necessary for jail safety and are reasonably related to penological interests | The Court: search occurs under Montana law but, balancing privacy and penological interests, suspicionless searches for those classified to general population are reasonable; District Court affirmed on constitutional claim |
| Whether §46-5-105, MCA prohibits suspicionless strip searches of detainees arrested for traffic or non-felonies even when they are to be placed in general population | Rogers: statute unambiguously prohibits all suspicionless strip or body-cavity searches of persons detained for traffic/non-felonies; no exception for general population admissions | County: statute should be read consistent with Florence and §46-5-101(2) (judicially recognized warrant exceptions) so searches before general-population placement are permitted | The Court: the statute's plain text forbids suspicionless searches of covered detainees; it imposes a more restrictive state rule than Florence; District Court reversed and remanded on this statutory claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2012) (held full strip searches of arrestees entering general population do not violate the Fourth Amendment absent other constraints)
- Deserly v. Department of Corrections, 995 P.2d 972 (Mont. 2000) (Montana recognition that strip searches implicate heightened privacy interests)
- Spady v. Montana, 354 P.3d 590 (Mont. 2015) (framework for warrantless searches and diminished privacy in custodial settings)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (standard that prison regulations impinging on rights are upheld if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (U.S. 2013) (balancing test for reasonableness of certain warrantless, nonconsensual searches)
- Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 77 P.3d 531 (Mont. 2003) (standards and articulation required for Rule 54(b) certification)
- In re Marriage of Armstrong, 78 P.3d 1203 (Mont. 2003) (explaining insufficiency of boilerplate reasoning for Rule 54(b) certification)
- Roy v. Neibauer, 610 P.2d 1185 (Mont. 1980) (factors for Rule 54(b) certification and appellate review)