*2 Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Police in Indianapolis arrested James Campbell for possessing marijuana. Be- cause jail the local crowded, Indianapolis does make a full custodial arrest of person each arrested misdemeanor; for a instead it issues a summons and citation. Before releasing Campbell, however, the police conducted a body-cavity search for drugs. Nothing found, was and no crimi- prosecution nal ensued. Campbell then officers, sued ten Police, the Chief of City of Indianapolis, under 42 U.S.C. § contending search violated the fourth amendment. He seeks not only damages but also an injunction against this practice. The district court denied Camp- request bell’s for a preliminary injunction, concluding that he has an adequate reme- dy at law. He immediately appealed un- 1292(a)(1). § der 28 U.S.C.

Campbell supposes money never is an adequate remedy for a consti tutional wrong. That belief is incorrect. Sampson v. Murray, 89- 94 S.Ct. (1974); L.Ed.2d 166 Music, Second Inc. v. Chicago, 333 (7th Cir.2003); F.3d 846 Webb v. Ball University, State 167 F.3d 1146 Cir. 1999). Damages normal, are a and ade quate, response to an improper search or seizure, which as a constitutional tort often (other) analogized personal-injury liti See, gation. e.g., Garcia, Wilson v. 105 S.Ct. 85 (1985). grants injunctive Erroneous re Michael K. Sutherlin (argued), Sutherlin hamper lief that enforcement of crimi & Associates, IN, Indianapolis, for Plain- nal law potential havoc, have to cause tiff-Appellant. (or denials) while erroneous awards Thus so. may never do class more single person

damages that other prospect rely on cannot bell public. general injure the ability to limited may be persons arrested false fallible, costs so the Judges Angeles Los Cf. body-cavity searches. considered must be always positives *3 1660, 75 95, 103 S.Ct. Lyons, the When among remedies. choosing his (1983). represents He this low—and are negatives of false costs parties. interests, of third not those remedy at own the say that to it means is what and arrested apt to be if he is Only correspondingly law is —there relief prospective would again searched prema- risk incur the to reason slight suggests in record nothing this apt, and Camp- injunctive relief. overbroad ture or He repeat offender. is a Campbell way, and that just getting suit bell’s not he does contrary, that alleges, to opportunity a full had City has not the arrested has never been drugs and this use Once practices. its justify explain he is that mean allegations These course, before. the decision its has run litigation injunctive pursue to right party the if the not even effect precedential will court relief. If this monetary. remedy is is unconsti- City’s practice the that decides Affirmed or not whether it must cease then tutional dissenting. WILLIAMS, Judge, (for Circuit prospect issues injunction a formal suspects to thousands paid damages address fails to majority opinion The line). If, howev- City into bring the would allega- in this testimony case—factual key end, or suffers er, City prevails to court only require this which tions defeat, avoiding prema- then only partial detail more Campbell’s claim evaluate to have prove relief will injunctive ture but provides, majority opinion than restraint. a wise exercise been IWhile result. a different suggest Campbell of whether regard question see how more, to it is difficult isWhat injunction for a standing injunction an issue court could he has close, ultimately conclude I events the same behest. bell’s Unless requirement constitutional satisfied there is to him again likely happen to inadequacy demonstrated has also him and the controversy between reasons, I For these damages. money handling of other City’s future about dissent. Bradford, arrests. Weinstein 46 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Background1 I. Additional represent to (1975). sought Campbell has India- correctly notes that majority misdemeanors, but arrested persons

all Campbell officers police napolis certified has not the district on June Township, testified court made limited the district 1. Because began car and parked his p.m., he fact, about 8 summary from my is taken findings of friend, Kimo of his walking house preliminary in- towards testimony presented in the analyst. Ac- Parham, product parties’ briefs. insurance hearing and junction Miller, it allegations discussed Frank cording to defendant Officer the factual While most that are recount- my are those Miller light outside. Officer dissent was still analysis, walking I offer case's towards germane to this Campbell saw ed that he Campbell's summary put stop. encounter brief and told Parham's home motives, context: police Campbell stat- officer's Unsure of the Par- walk towards he continued ed that Trans- the School Campbell, employed as residence, enough get hoping to close Perry ham’s Security Supervisor for portation and search; to a body cavity however, the ma- he observed the search from a window jority does not mention of his home actually saw genitals conducted inspection exposed. their of Campbell’s genitalia and anal public, area in namely Not only was cavity search backyard, allegedly visible done public, but it was done driveway of the of Campbell’s friend, home Indianapolis Department (“IPD”) Police Parham, Kimo eye-shot within of Par- policy.2 This authorizes such “thor- (who ham search) observed the and his ough body searches” of persons charged young fact, children. Parham testified with nonviolent misdemeanors including *4 that, words, Campbell’s so "somebody in- search. Officer Miller testified pulled he then side going would hear what was on and come up Campbell's pants, gave him summons to outside to observe going what was on.” Offi- appear possession marijuana, of and re- cer Miller testified that he then drew his Campbell leased him. testified charges weapon, Campbell drop told ground, were ever filed. Parham, and then handcuffed him. who tes- tified that he expecting Campbell, was stated 2. While district court made no findings of handcuffed, that he saw Campbell being fact as to whether defendants public conduct asked was happening, what and heard Officer strip body cavity and searches to a Miller Campbell comment that fit the descrip- police policy, blanket to, parties both point fleeing suspect. tion of a Campbell testified noted, and the district provisions court that Officer once suspect Miller said that the Executive Committee of the Marion Coun foot, fled on he asked Officer Miller whether ty Superior April Order of 2002 and he had Campbell seen exit his car in front of the IPD General Order authorizing 18.02 as Parham’s Campbell house. and Parham testi- searches. fied that there was drugs no mention of made at that time. The Executive Committee of the Marion thereafter, Shortly defendants Officers An- County Superior April Order drew Lamle and Wolfe Scott arrived. Officer 2002 states "It is therefore the Order of the Miller a pat-down conducted of Camp- Court, Superior Marion through and its bell nothing. and found Officer Miller told Executive that Committee Wolfe Campbell that dropped had something A. The County Marion longer Sheriff no by a driveway (although car Campbell accept into county arrestees the Marion disputes dropped that he anything). Wolfe Lock-up only charged who are with the picked then up a plastic baggie containing following misdemeanor crimes: marijuana ground. from the Defendant Offi- 1.) Marijuana Possession cer Duley, Kevin the officer had who been 2.) Paraphernalia Possession pursuing fleeing suspect, testified 3.) .Driving suspended awith license about ten pat-down, minutes after the he ar- 4.) vehicle; Operating a having never re- rived and stated that he did not want to arrest ceived a license Campbell because had he seen face of 5.) Prostitution suspect who fled from him. 6.) Patronizing prostitute Campbell contends Officer Miller then 7.) Conversion Campbell told jail that due to overcrowding, strip he had to search him at that time to C. County The Marion Sheriff advise all drugs if he determine had on him. Law agencies Enforcement within Mar- testified that while backyard in Parham’s and County ion to issue summons handcuffed, lieu while still Officer (donning Miller arrest for above gloves) latex referenced crimes Campbell's pants unbuckled and charges if pulled are be filed with the underpants, down his Mar- exposing his genitalia, County ion had him Prosecutors' Office.” slightly, bend over and provides, examined his General perti- buttocks and Order 18.02 anal area. bell "Any nent part, testified making that Officer Miller felt officer under arrest or Campbell's groin area. coming Miller otherwise prisoner Officer into con- control of a tends he spread must but- make an thorough body immediate and Nothing tocks. was found as a result of prisoner....” (emphasis added). characterized Moreover, court this driving and a license

driving without “de as cavity searches and strip cited sources license. suspended hu undignified, dehumanizing, meaning, Po- Indianapolis Moreover, supra note embar unpleasant, testimony terrifying, indi- miliating, Jerry Barker’s Chief lice degradation signifying provided repulsive, rassing, IPD officers cates ” v.G. Beth Mary discretion .... wide and on and submission guidance little (7th search[es]” F.2d “thorough Chicago, 723 conduct words, Wittke, ap- Barker’s Cir.1983) Tinetti Chief policy. (quoting this on dependent aff'd, 620 (E.D.Wis.1979), plication F.Supp. of- Cir.1980)). discretion of “[rjeasonableness Finally, F.2d circum- totality ficer, on of few based think “we can has stated or, faces,” stat- as [sic] officer stances the state authority by exercises brief, “if the the defendants’ dignity ed privacy citizen’s on intrude necessary.” it is feels genital anal severely as visual G., Mary here.” practiced Damages Money Inadequacy of II. (finding unconstitutional *5 allega- these factual The existence briefly detained women searches opinion, majority the tions, absent driving offenses, including misdemeanor claims at look closer compels a lockup license, city in a driver’s without legal conclusions end, and, different very at money). So the awaiting bail while majority. Sever- by the drawn those than closer case warrants least, Campbell’s that, very the at recognized courts al look. cavity searches minimum, strip and hand case at the consideration Close v. Bell pause,” most the ] us “give[ Wolf- conclusions. legal different compels 1861, 60 558, 520, 99 S.Ct. ish, 441 U.S. conclu- legal court’s district Reviewing the (1979), invasive the as 447 L.Ed.2d ruling de injunction in its sions Fourth fundamental “implicate searches Kenosha, must, v. novo, Kiel we as Dep’t Roe v. Texas rights,” Amendment Cir.2000), (7th court 814, 815 F.3d 236 Services, 299 Regulatory and Protective an Campbell lacks conclude may properly Cir.2002). the Su- (5th As 395, 404 F.3d subject- being law remedy at Lafayette, v. in Illinois noted preme pursu- public cavity search in ed to 645, S.Ct. 103 U.S. 462 Bell, Supreme the police policy. ant law- in its discussion test we balancing the described booking incident inventory searches ful particular whether to determine to use jailing, and Fourth the is reasonable search impractical be would Police conduct S.Ct. 99 Amendment. embarrassingly in- or unreasonable —or magnitude weighs the That test 1861. readi- can more street the trusive —on against privacy personal invasion of at the performed privately ly —be —and conducting interest governmental sup- the interests example, For station. question. searches particular would to arrest incident a search porting Moreover, 559-60, 1861. 99 S.Ct. on arrestee disrobing an hardly justify most critical, certainly and “[o]ne necessities street, practical but v. obvious, the Bell elements may Wolfish even jail administration of routine reasonableness into balancing inquiry before clothes prisoner’s taking a justify it in which place ‘the strip search would him, step although confining ” F.2d Shealy, 660 v. Logan is conducted.’ rare. (4th Cir.1981) Bell, (quoting West, 441 v. Cir.2001) 1861). U.S. at 99 S.Ct. (noting “we have repeatedly empha sized the necessity of conducting This Mary strip court Beth G. found that search in private” and strip concluding searches of “[t]he women arrested for mis- that, fact justification absent clear demeanor offenses or exi conducted at the city gent circumstances, lockup while an they officer awaited is not bond al were un- lowed to strip reasonable under the Bell on arrestee balancing public test street thereby to a violated the Fourth Amend- incident to an G., ment. Mary arrest necessarily 728 F.2d at means that an officer Citing, alia, inter cannot go this court’s decision even further than simply disrob Tinetti, the Mary ing Beth G. by arrestee found actually touching magnitude of the state’s penetrating intrusion into exposed arrestee’s genita plaintiffs’ privacy was extremely lia on high. public street.”); United States (“we at 1272 can think of Ford, few exercises of (E.D.Va. F.Supp.2d by authority 2002) state that intrude on the (granting a motion to suppress, stat citizen’s privacy and dignity severely as “[t]aking the Bell account, factors into the visual anal genital prac- the Court concludes ticed here” where detainees were made to engaged in a highly invasive squat and bend permit over to inspection exposing the defendant’s buttocks on the of their vaginal areas). anal The pri- side of a highway in broad daylight, vacy concerns triggered by the particular and that the search violated the defen searches under scrutiny were found to out- dant’s Fourth protection”). Amendment *6 weigh City the of Chicago’s proffered need That the search of Campbell was con- to (to conduct the prevent searches misde- ducted in public significantly increases the meanor offenders from bringing in weap- severity of governmental the intrusion in- ons or contraband into the lockups), volved here. The professed defendants’ perceived as the security risks of not doing reasons for the in all likelihood the can- searches was not borne by out not justify such extreme incursions ain evidence in the record. Id. at 1272-73. person’s privacy under the The Fourth searches in Amend- Mary Beth G. were con- ment. That the policy ducted confers without unbridled even suspicion reasonable discretion on that the officers plaintiffs and does not posed security risks to require even by reasonable lockup possibly suspicion for an concealing weapons or to conduct a strip contraband and were cavity thereby found un- (recall, constitutional. at defendants If write searches their Mary brief Beth that an G. officer can were unreason- submit a able they citizen to were such a search “if conducted on the officer misde- feels meanor offenders it is during necessary”) a brief time makes the of of likelihood detention in a City lockup policy’s without reason- unconstitutionality only able suspicion that they posed greater. security Constitution clearly requires threat to the lockup, then it is hard to see least suspicion reasonable for a law how conducting a body cavity search, also enforcement subject officer to person to during period a brief detention, but such a G., search. Mary See 723 public, of suspected 1273; misdemeanor F.2d offend- Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d er, who incontrovertibly posed (1st Cir.1997) no threat to (citing cases holding the the arresting officers’ security, could be Fifth, same Sixth, and Eleventh constitutionally See, sound. e.g., Circuits). Amaechi Fuller also v. Jewelry, M.G. harm.”). irreparable Cir.1991) prove (9th sufficient 1437, 1446-47 F.2d establish can words, Campbell cavity other strip that (holding by demonstrat- harm element but irreparable to arrest incident conducted searches rights. constitutional his violated suspicion ing violation reasonable

without is harm irreparable con- also, Furthermore, showing Amendment; searches Fourth ar- that method suspicion common most reasonable “[pjrobably ducted dangerous or weapons is no there carrying demonstrating ee is rest constitutional, while conduct- & Miller Wright, 11A is remedy.” legal contraband order “in Procedure invasive Practice Kane, Federal or evidence Supply and seize Fleet Wholesale discover also § fruits 2944. See ” (emphasis constitutional Co.,. is not F.2d Arms crime Remington v.Co. “cannot added)). the defendants Finally, injury Cir.1988) (“To say that (7th harmed [they are] reasonably assert methods means irreparable is being sense cognizable legally any law) inadequate.” (remedies at repair violations.” constitutional enjoined original)).3 (emphasis (9th 719, 727 INS, F.2d v. Zepeda majority’s Furthermore, contrary to the Cir.1985). decides “[i]f suggestion depriva- alleged Moreover, “[w]hen then unconstitutional is practice City’s involved, right of a constitutional tion (for prospect ... must cease it showing no further hold courts most suspects thousands paid damages necessary.” injury irreparable 2,p. line),” supra City into bring the would (2d 804, 806 Cuomo, v. Mitchell possibility that the recognized courts Miller, A.& Cir.1984) Wright (citing 11 C. only meager engenders damages money 2948.1 § Procedure Practice Federal incur- police against effect deterrent any if& Wright, Miller 11A (1973)). See See, rights. Amendment on Fourth sions and Procedure: Practice Kane, Federal 197, 202 Gelston, 364 F.2d e.g., Lankford ed.1995) (same); (2d § 2948.1 2d Civil in- Cir.1966) (4th (granting Comm’n, 284 Airport Henry v. Greenville violations against protect junction (“The Cir.1960) District *7 F.2d rights Amendment Fourth plaintiffs’ of by deny relief to no discretion has Court experience alia, “the lesson when, inter who person a to injunction money possibility remote is undisputed evidence by clearly establishes po- future to no deterrent damages serves constitutional a being denied is that he Ohio, 367 Mapp (citing v. invasions” lice cases)). Peo- National (citing right” Cf. 1684, L.Ed.2d 6 651-52, 81 S.Ct. Wilmette, U.S. 914 Village v. Action ple’s (where Supreme (1961)) (“Even Cir.1990) 1081 (7th rele- futility of obvious “[t]he recognized amendment of first deprivation temporary pro- Amendment Fourth gating the generally rights expression freedom irrep- bewill that she established plaintiff has significant intrusions involving cases Other 3. is- injunction does not an arably if harmed unreasonable representing privacy Local sue.''); Employees, Gov’t Fed’n Am. Amendment the Fourth ' Wilson, *14 at WL 1990 208749 remedy 1857 at no suggest that there 1990) injunc- an (granting (E.D.Cal. July See, v. Bd. e.g., Bannister Campbell. law for testing is an drug tion, "Urinalysis stating County, Leavenworth County Comm’rs of humiliating proce- invasive, degrading and (D.Kan.1993) Kan., 1252 F.Supp. by constitution- injury inflicted dure by unconsti- an ("Because injury inflicted be remed- cannot character of this by violation al remedied drug test cannot tutional award."). damage by a ied award, concludes the court damage tection of other remedies [such as criminal Music, Second City Inc. v. Chicago, 333 sanctions]”)). or civil also Elkins v. F.3d Cir.2003) is also distinguish- States, United 206, 220, able from S.Ct. Campbell’s case. Second City (1960) 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 involved a (citing city ordinance which required approval the California dealers of Supreme used audio and video equipment which to “experience held obtain licenses in demonstrated, order to sell such however, merchandise, neither administrative, measure aimed at prevent- crim- inal nor dealers civil from becoming remedies are effective in sup- “fences for thieves.” 333 F.3d at pressing 847. In seizures.”). response lawless searches and the plaintiffs request sum, In for an injunction Campbell has sufficiently alleged preventing city an applying injury of a type ordi- this court to proper- nance to businesses, established ly we found conclude that Campbell lacks ade- that requiring plaintiff to apply for a quate remedy at law. license to continue operate its business Moreover, the cases the majority cites would incur “no detriment.” to support its conclusion that money dam- Any analogy between requiring a used CD ages are an adequate remedy for an un- shop to obtain a license and a person to constitutional search are readily distin- submit to an exceedingly invasive search in guishable from the case at bar. Sampson public is strained at best. The harms v. Murray, S.Ct. 39 involved in Second case dealt with the bar extent of are not comparable degree —neither federal power courts’ nor injunctions issue in sort. upon claims government federal em- The same can be said for Webb v. Board ployees that their civil rights service Trustees Ball State University, been violated. Sampson involved a proba- (7th Cir.1999). F.3d 1146 case, tionary government employee’s wrongful irreparable harm warranting a preliminary discharge which the Supreme Court con- injunction was found plaintiffs, when state strued as a “routine case” lacking the ex- university employees, alleged university traordinary circumstances which would retaliation against them for protected warrant a finding of irreparable injury. speech.4 Again, a “brouhaha” within a Id. at 92 n. 68. plaintiff in Sampson university department leading to replace- alleged embarrassment and damage plaintiff ment of to her professor as department reputation when her chair employer does not discharged rise the level of harm her in a involved, manner inconsistent with acknowledged by adminis- the Supreme procedural trative Court and circuits, rules. Not several only does *8 Campbell’s conduct a body search, case not cavity involve gov- federal never mind when it personnel ernment actions, done in public. but the harm the Sampson plaintiff complained of is Finally, the majority cites Wilson v. hardly comparable harm, described Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at length by this court in Mary G., (1985). That case dealt with that one experiences as a result of having how to construe actions for damages one’s most private parts fondled by a law brought under 42 § U.S.C. 1983 for statute enforcement officer. This point is at least of limitation purposes. Not only did that doubly true Campbell for who subject- was case involve a request for damages only ed to intrusive search in public. injunctive and not relief, but to the extent 4. No First Amendment violation was found in this case. in his alleged type police the with a constitutional analogizes that Wilson allega- factual several are there complaint, tort, so it does personal-injury a

wrong to on which case Campbell’s in present tions purposes. of limitation for statute a standing for found comment have courts basis provides of itself in and case present- claim even when injunction, majority’s broader preliminary the support to claims and speculative a normal somewhat damages are ed judicial seizure. paid or have improper Courts to an harm. future response in facts, alleged following the notice Standing III. had finding party a case, in Campbell’s (1) Lyons, injunction: Angeles preliminary a standing Los In was 75 L.Ed.2d plaintiff the 95, 103 S.Ct. to which acts police the a two- forth complains set he (1983), Supreme which about subjected in satisfy must plaintiffs or part policy; test by police were authorized pre- for a standing to demonstrate occa- order limit the clearly not did policy police must “al- plaintiff injunction: liminary take activity could police which sions in encounter another would he lege that place. and, part, pertinent in police” yielded has to date my research As police authorized or City ordered “that I point, directly on case Circuit Seventh which about the manner act” in officers from authority. law Case outside look to 105-06, 103 Id. at complains. plaintiff Campbell suggests circuits our sister has satisfied Campbell 1660. S.Ct. injunction preliminary standing for has he suffi- as that test part second conducting enjoin defendants admit- the defendants alleged, and ciently example, For him. against cavity searches officers IPD ted,5 Safir, 156 E. v. public cavity search Deshawn ato words, distin (2d Cir.1998), Circuit In other the Second policy.6 IPD in- standing Executive Lyons found Order 18.02 guished General IPD Superior County because part large the Marion relief junctive Committee together “officially April were activities challenged police Order offi- police and the that “there found such searches policies.” It authorize endorsed (appar- their injury were within because recurring defendants cer a likelihood unbridled) discretion, interpreted authorized ently Squad’s activities [police] they conduct- Barker, when understand Chief memorandum written by a the invasive Counsel Corporation ed ing between parts. other private bell’s Police Commissioner.” aof written words, the existence stand- Lyons part of for the first As con complained-of authorizing the seeking a test, plaintiff requiring case, bolsters duct, present that he to show injunction harm. of future claim encounter another threat a real faces district review ¶ court must ("The 6. While Compl. Am. Compare PL's error, *9 clear for findings of fact court’s Camp- James on Plaintiff performed search Inc., (IMC), Logistics v. U.S.F. Anderson or practice pursuant performed bell was Cir.2001), the district Depart- Indianapolis Police policy of on findings of fact made this case court in Compl. ment.”) to Am. Defs.' Answer However, admit defendants this issue. allega- ¶ (“Defendants material admit done case was in this at issue that the 56.”). paragraph tions in practice. policy or pursuant to IPD The Ninth Circuit’s decision Thomas S.Ct. v. County Angeles, Thomas, Los 978 F.2d 504 508). 978 F.2d at (9th Cir.1993) reached a similar conclusion. Lastly, the fact that the IPD policy, It found standing for a preliminary injunc- pursuant to which police officer defen- tion plaintiffs alleged, alia, inter dants they acted when conducted the challenged police conduct was “con- cavity search of Campbell in public, places doned tacitly by authorized [sheriff] no limit on when an may submit a department policy makers.” Id. at 508. summons arrestee to such sup- searches Thomas, As in Campbell has alleged, and ports Campbell’s standing claim. the defendants admitted, the Lyons, Supreme judicial took police subjected officers to a notice of the limitations the Los Angeles body cavity search in public, consistent police placed policy police on use of choke- policy practice. or holds which were challenged in that case. In the context of assessing Lyons whether

Addressing whether “the same events would be an illegal likely happen chokehold again to [Campbell]”, again future, stated, supra p. “po- Campbell contends that these lice officers were instructed to use public invasive choke- searches are done with only holds when lesser degrees' of some force degree of do frequency. Defendant Of not suffice and then gain ‘to ficer control of Miller testified he alone con suspect who is violently resisting the twenty ducted thirty He searches. ” officer or trying to escape.’ Lyons, 461 also testified he has observed other 103 S.Ct. 1660 (quoting the officers performing the invasive searches. record). In the judgment, Court’s the fact Lamle, Defendant Andrew another India that there awas constraint on police use of napolis officer, testified that he too the stranglehold weakened plaintiff has conducted “similar searches.” While Lyons’s claim of standing. there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine what percentage of However, total there is. no comparable con- summons arrests public involved strip straint on IPD officers the case at bar. (nor cavity and/or is it clear The defendants state in their appellate whether the IPD even keeps such reco brief that an IPD officer may conduct such rds),7 there is enough evidence in the an invasive search public “if the officer record to show that what Campbell was it feels is necessary.” Moreover, IPD subjected to was not aberrational. And as Chief Barker testified that application noted National Congress Puerto Ri of the dependent on for “[Rea- can Rights York, New sonableness discretion officer, of the F.Supp.2d (S.D.N.Y.1999), on based totality of the circumstances” “[c]ourts have been hesitant to grant an officer However, faces. Fourth standing to sue injunctive relief where Amendment jurisprudence discussed above numerous constitutional violations have re indicates that the search challenged here is sulted from policy of unconstitutional in all likelihood reasonable, never given practices by law (cit enforcement officers” severity the intrusion and the fact Medrano, Altee v. 802, 94 that it is conducted in public. So allowing Here, instance, although it undisputed bell was issued a possession summons for performed Officer Miller strip marijuana but makes no mention whatsoever Campbell, search of report official case strip search. narrated Officer Miller states *10 when- a search conduct

an officer his discre- necessary” in it is “feels he

ever on the no limit functionally places

tion The defendants’ policy.

application Robinson, 414 v. States to United

citation L.Ed.2d 218, 94 S.Ct. discretion issue on the claim, be- not undermine

does G., “[t]he Mary stated as we cause suggest did not ] Robinson [in subject may validly arrested

person feels is arresting officer

any search (emphasis

necessary.” conferred broad discretion Such original). Evanston, (argued), Freedman M. Alan fact officers, combined IPD upon Petitioner-Appellant. IL, for consistent cavity body likeli- only increase policy, R. Stephen (argued), Perkins D. Thomas subjected bewill Campbell hood General, Attorney Creason, Office again cavity search IN, Respondent-Appel- Indianapolis, future. lee. Further, of misdemeanors the list subjected to may be person which Judge, and FLAUM, Chief Before cited sources see in public, cavity EASTERBROOK, COFFEY, POSNER, underscores note supra ROVNER, KANNE, MANION, RIPPLE, unreasonableness, also multi- but policy’s EVANS, WOOD, P. DIANE will be likelihood plies Judges. WILLIAMS, Circuit future. a search to such dissent. respectfully I Judge, with whom RIPPLE, Circuit P. ROVNER, DIANE DIAMOND

LLANA Judges, WILLIAMS, Circuit WOOD from the denial dissenting join, banc. rehearing en WALLACE, Jr., Procedure Appellate Rule of Ray Federal Donald granted should be rehearing Petitioner-Appellant, explains neces- “(1) consideration banc en uniformity of maintain or sary secure Respondent-Appellee. DAVIS, Cecil “(2) proceed- or decisions” the court’s im- exceptional question ing involves 02-4262. No. disjunctively- these Both portance.” Appeals, States United uniformity and in Rule criteria stated 35— Circuit. Seventh court’s importance justify exceptional — en banc. this case rehearing 28, 2004. June uniformity, criterion, first As line holding majority’s panel