823 F.3d 1144
7th Cir.
2016

Dаrnell FONDER, Theresa Dietz, and Steven Moore, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHERIFF OF KANKAKEE COUNTY, Illinois, and Kankakee County, Illinois, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-2905

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 26, 2016

823 F.3d 1144

from the evidence. Schmidt cannot show that the state appellate court‘s affirmance of his commitment was an unreasonable application of that standard. As the majority opinion explains, the evidence of Schmidt‘s own accounts of his past violent sexual assaults remained relevant in assessing the risk of future assaults and the conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of the treatment he had received in custody. Reasonable judges could find that powerful evidence was admissible, despite the risk that it would have unfair emotional impact.

Schmidt has argued for de novo review rather than the deferential review under § 2254(d)(1) because the state appellate court did not directly address the merits of the federal constitutional claim. The argument comes with a strong dose of irony, of course. Schmidt never raised the federal constitutional claim, at least explicitly, so it‘s no surprise that the state court did not аddress it explicitly.

The argument is creative, but it would be strange to say that a petitioner can avoid deferential review of state court decisions under § 2254 by presenting his federal claims only implicitly (but well enough for “fair presentment” under the Ellsworth line of cases), and then arguing the state courts failed to decide ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‍the federal issue on the merits. That approach would undеrmine § 2254(d), which makes clear that federal habeas corpus relief is “not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal” but is instead a “guard against extreme malfunctiоns in the state criminal justice systems,” in cases where the state court‘s error is “beyond any possibility of fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-03, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

I would apply the Richter standard to say the state court‘s implicit rejection of the imрlicit federal constitutional claim was on the merits here, within the meaning of § 2254(d)(1). Applying the deferential standard of § 2254(d)(1), the denial of relief to Schmidt did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Accordingly, Schmidt is not entitled to federal habeas relief.

Argued April 18, 2016

Decided May 26, 2016

Kenneth N. Flaxman, Attorney, Joel A. Flaxman, Attorney, Law Office оf Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael W. Condon, Attorney, Yordana Sawyer, Attorney, Hervas, Condon & Bersani, Itasca, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EASTERBROOK and SYKES, Circuit ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‍Judges, and ADELMAN, District Judge.*

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

The Sheriff of Kankakee County, Illinois, has a written policy requiring a careful visual inspection (a “strip search“) of every arrestee before that person enters the general population at the Jeromе Combs Detention Center. The policy permits manual body-cavity inspections of some arrestees. Three arrestees filed this suit to contest the Sheriff‘s policy to the extent it applies to persons whose custody has not yet been approved by a judge. (Police may take as long as two days before presenting an arrested person to a judge fоr a probable-cause determination. See Riverside County v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991).)

The district judge certified this class: “All persons held in the custody of the Sheriff of Kankakee County from April 20, 2010 to the date of entry of judgment who, following a warrantless arrest, were strip searched in advance of a judicial determination of probable cause.” 2013 WL 5644754 at *4, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148026 at *11 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2013). The court later held that the Sheriff‘s policy is valid as applied to the class so defined. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177622 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2015).

That decision relies principally on Florence v. Burlington County, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012). The Court held in Florence that the Constitution permits officials to conduct strip searches and body-cavity inspections of arrested persons before they enter a jail‘s general population. The Justices observed that arrestees may be сoncealing drugs, knives, money, or other contraband (including sharp objects such as pens that may be used as weapons); may have diseases (or just be carrying lice); and may have gаng tattoos that could lead to violence. Custodians are entitled to take precautions before placing new arrivals in the general population. Florence rejected a contention that persons arrested for minor offenses must be excluded from these searches. 132 S.Ct. at 1520-21.

The district court thought the approach of Florence sound whether or not a new arrival has been taken before a judge. That makes sense: the Court‘s rationale depends on the arrested person‘s placement in the general population, not on the way in which pretrial custody has been justified (by indictment, arrest warrant, or post-arrest judicial ruling about probable cause). The need to find weapons and contraband is greatest on a person‘s initial arrest; postponing inspection until after a probable-cause hearing misses the opportunity ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‍to keep contraband or disease out of the general population. But there is a mismatch between the rationаle of Florence and the class definition in this suit—for the class includes all arrestees, whether or not they enter a jail‘s general population.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito both concurrеd specially in Florence to warn against reading the Court‘s opinion to authorize automatic strip searches of people who are not bound for the general population. As Justiсe Alito observed, many arrestees are released without going into the general population. 132 S.Ct. at 1524. Some are not detained beyond the time needed to post a bond; others may be held in areas devoted to arrestees whose custody has not received judicial approval. And the record of this case demonstrates the point. At least two members of the class—Zorica Petrovic and Cyquim James—contend that they were arrested, strip searched, and then immediately released. Perhaps others are in that categоry. If they are telling the truth, they have good claims that their rights have been violated. Yet they are members of the class defined by the district court and so are barred by principles of preclusion from filing their own suits.

There is another problem with the district court‘s disposition: the policy in practice may differ from the policy as written. During discovery several guards testified that they permit arrestees to undress behind a curtain, take a shower, and don prison-issued clothing before emerging. Other guards said that they require arrestees to undress and shower in front of them, but the guards аvert their eyes or give only cursory attention. Still other guards stated that they conduct strip searches or body-cavity inspections only for persons charged with certain crimes, or whеn the arresting officers suggest a strip search. The district court did not determine whether these guards correctly described the jail‘s practice. Instead the judge found that the power tо conduct a strip search of every arrestee implies the lesser power to inspect a subset of all arrestees.

That approach is not sound. Florence deemed the strip-search policy reasonable precisely because every arrestee going into the general population was examined for contraband, lice, disease, and gang tattoos. Searching half or two-thirds or four-fifths of the new arrivals will not prevent the introduction ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‍of lice or disease, or outbreaks of gang violence, and it cuts down the ability of the policy to curtail contrabаnd. Indeed, Florence observed that, if some new arrivals are exempted from inspection, inmates may rely on them (or perhaps compel them) to import drugs, cell phones, money, knives, оr other forbidden articles. 132 S.Ct. at 1521. If some guards predictably fail to inspect new arrivals closely, that creates a reliable way to smuggle contraband into a prison. And searching on an arresting officer‘s say-so poses a risk of harassment, or letting the process be the punishment.

Kankakee County does not contend that it would be reasonable to inspect a subset of all newly arriving inmates. Instead it denies that any guards deviate from the written policy. But we have read the guards’ declarations, and several of them say that they are implementing their personal ideas about how much visual inspection is needed. If these statements reflect ongoing behavior, then it is hard to see how Florence can supply the support that the Sheriff‘s pоlicy needs. The record as it stands presents a disputed question of material fact that may require a trial to resolve, unless the parties can work out their differences by stipulation.

The district judge implied that the class had waived or forfeited its opportunity to contest how the policy works in practice by proposing a definition that includes all newly arrestеd persons. Yet when this suit began, and the definition was proposed, class counsel had no reason to think that the jail‘s staff was doing something other than what the written policy requires. Classes аre certified early in a suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). All certifications are tentative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C). If the evidence calls into question the propriety of defining a class in a particular way, then the definition must be modified or subclasses certified. A class defined early in a suit cannot justify adjudicating hypothetical issues rather than determining the legality of what actually happens. The class definition must yield to the facts, rather than the other way ‘round.

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‍for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

EASTERBROOK

Circuit Judge

Notes

*
Of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
Read the detailed case summary