Jaegel et al v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 57 MOTION TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2012) ***Disregard, See Docket No. 65 For Correct Order***

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

MARK ANTHONY JAEGAL, SR.; MARK
ANTHONY JAEGAL, JR., individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

v.

No. C 09-0242 CW
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO AMEND
CLASS
CERTIFICATION
ORDER (Docket No.
57)

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

11
12

On January 22, 2010, the Court certified the following class,

13

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) for

14

injunctive and declaratory relief and (b)(3) for damages:

15
16
17
18
19
20

All pre-arraignment detainees who are or will be held
in Defendants' custody and who, because of such
detention, will be strip searched pursuant to Alameda
County Sheriff's Department custom, policy or
procedure without a reasonable suspicion based on
specific and articulable facts that the detainee
possessed a weapon or contraband that would be found
as a result of the strip search.
In doing so, the Court noted that the class definition

21
was subject to revision and decertification, if necessary.
22
Defendants move to amend the class definition.

Docket

24

No. 57.

The motion

25

was taken under submission on the papers.

26

considered all of the parties' arguments, the Court grants

27

Defendants' motion in part.

23

28

Plaintiffs oppose the motion in part.

Having

1

DISCUSSION

2

Defendants move to amend the class definition to clarify that

3

(1) the term "strip search," for purposes of defining the class in

4

this action, is limited to the search of a person who is

5

completely unclothed, or whose genitals or female breasts are

6

exposed to be viewed by the person or persons conducting the

7

search, and (2) the class is limited to those who experienced such

8

searches while in the intake/booking process.1

9

Plaintiffs acknowledge that Bull v. City and County of San

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 982 (9th Cir. 2010), found facially

11

reasonable under the Fourth Amendment a jail policy that required

12

unclothed visual inspection of all arrestees classified for

13

custodial housing in the general population, notwithstanding the

14

lack of individualized reasonable suspicion as to the individuals

15

searched.

16

those who were strip searched, as Plaintiffs define that term,

Accordingly, Plaintiffs agree to limit the class to

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants' original proposed amended class definition
states,
All pre-arraignment detainees who are or will be held in
Defendants' custody, but will not be transferred to the general
inmate population, and who, because of such detention, are strip
searched in a manner which requires that they remove all their
clothing and expose their genitals, buttocks and, in the case of
female detainees, breasts to be viewed by the person or persons
conducting the search, pursuant to Alameda County Sheriff's
Department custom, policy or procedure without reasonable
suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that the
detainee possessed a weapon or contraband that would be found as a
result of the strip search. To qualify the [sic] as a member of
the class, the detainee must have undergone the strip search, as
described above, as part of the jail's routine booking process and
while in the booking/intake area of the jail, and must not have
been transferred to the general jail population.
2

1

pursuant to the challenged policy or custom, during the booking

2

process.

3

proposed amended class definition because the last sentence

4

excludes those who were strip searched under the policy, but were

5

later transferred to the general jail population.

6

Defendants agree that their proposed wording was unduly narrow in

7

this respect and propose a sentence that states, "To qualify as a

8

member of the class, the detainee must have undergone the strip

9

search, in the manner described above, as part of the jail's

However, Plaintiffs take issue with Defendants' original

In their reply,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

routine booking process and while in the booking/intake area of

11

the jail."

12

strip searched during the booking process is appropriate because

13

the prior class definition, approved before Bull, did not

14

distinguish between those detainees strip searched during the

15

booking process, and those strip searched as part of their

16

transfer to housing with the general inmate population.

17

An amendment to limit the class to those who were

On the other hand, Plaintiffs oppose limiting the class to

18

those who were searched while naked, thus excluding those who were

19

searched while wearing undershorts.

20

the definition of a strip search necessarily excludes searches of

21

those detainees wearing undershorts.

22

The parties dispute whether

Plaintiffs contend that it is well established in the Ninth

23

Circuit that a strip search may occur while the person subject to

24

the search continues to wear underwear.

25

Supreme Court's reasoning in Safford Unified School District #1 v.

26

Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 (2009), and the Ninth Circuit's decisions

27

in Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, 629 F.3d 1135,

28

1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011) and Edgerly v. City and County of San
3

Plaintiffs cite the

Francisco, 599 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2010).

2

cases the searched individuals were required to expose their

3

genitalia or private parts.

4

out" her underwear, such that the private areas of her body were

5

exposed to the persons conducting the search.

6

2641.2

7

underwear to inspect his private areas visually.

8

958.3

9

keep his underwear on, but was subjected to a tactile inspection

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

by a cadet who "touched [the plaintiff's] inner and outer thighs,

11

buttocks, and genital area with her latex-gloved hand through very

12

thin boxer shorts," "ran her hand up to separate the cheeks while

However, in these

In Safford, the plaintiff "pulled

129 S. Ct. at

In Edgerly, the searching officers opened the plaintiff's
599 F.3d at

Finally, in Byrd, the searched individual was allowed to

13
2

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

In Safford the plaintiff was directed "to remove her
clothes down to her underwear, and then 'pull out' her bra and the
elastic band on her underpants." Id. The Court stated that the
"exact label" for the intrusion was "not important, though strip
search is a fair way to speak of it." Id. The Court explained,
The very fact of [the plaintiff's] pulling her
underwear away from her body in the presence of the
two officials who were able to see her necessarily
exposed her breasts and pelvic area to some degree,
and both subjective and reasonable societal
expectations of personal privacy support the treatment
of such a search as categorically distinct, requiring
distinct elements of justification . . . for going
beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings.

22
Id.
23
3

24
25
26
27
28

In Edgerly, the evidence indicated that the searching
official required the plaintiff to pull his pants down to his
ankles, and then "placed his finger within [the plaintiff's]
boxers and 'kind of just looked around.'" Id. (quoting the
plaintiff's testimony). The court found a reasonable inference
that the official "visually inspected [the plaintiff's] buttocks
or genitalia, which would amount to a strip search" under Ninth
Circuit precedent. Id.
4

1

applying slight pressure, to search for contraband inside his

2

anus," and "moved his penis and scrotum in the process of

3

conducting the search."

629 F.3d at 1137, 1142.

4

Plaintiffs have not provided any indication that the

5

officials in the present action subjected Mr. Jaegel, Jr., who

6

remained clothed in his underwear, to a tactile search of his

7

genitalia or buttocks, that they pulled out Mr. Jaegel, Jr.'s

8

underwear to allow a visual inspection of such areas, or that they

9

required him to move his underwear, exposing those areas to the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

searching officials.

11

conducted anything other than a visual inspection of Mr. Jaegel,

12

Jr. after he was asked to strip to his undershorts.

13

the class definition is warranted to clarify the type of search

14

that a class member must have experienced.

15

There is no indication that Defendants

Amendment to

Plaintiffs propose in their opposition brief to modify the

16

class definition to clarify that it includes individuals who were

17

strip searched in the past.

18

the first sentence of the class definition state, in relevant

19

part, "All pre-arraignment detainees who are, will be or have been

20

processed (booked) into Defendants' custody and who, because of

21

such booking processing, have been or will be strip searched

22

pursuant to Alameda County Sheriff's Department custom, policy or

23

procedure . . ."

24

request that it contain a limiting date of January 20, 2007, based

25

on the two year statute of limitations for the claim.

26

v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that

27

the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury

28

actions governs § 1983 claims and California Code of Civil

Specifically, Plaintiffs propose that

Defendants do not oppose this modification, but

5

Canatella

1

Procedure section 335.1 establishes a two-year limitations period

2

for personal injury actions).

3
4
5

in part.

The Court amends the class definition to state,

15

All pre-arraignment detainees who have been, after
January 20, 2007, are, or will be held in Defendants'
custody and who, because of such detention, were,
after January 20, 2007, or will be, strip searched in
a manner requiring that they remove all of their
clothing or expose their genitals, buttocks or, in the
case of female detainees, breasts, for visual
inspection by the person(s) conducting the search,
pursuant to Alameda County Sheriff's Department
custom, policy or procedure without a reasonable
suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that
the detainee possessed a weapon or contraband that
would be found as a result of the strip search. To
qualify as a member of the class, the detainee must
have undergone or undergo the strip search, as
described above, as part of the jail's routine booking
process and while in the booking/intake area of the
jail.

16

As set forth in this Court's June 3, 2011 order, the

6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Defendants' motion to amend the class definition is granted

11
12
13
14

17

parties shall appear for a case management conference on

18

January 26, 2011.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: 1/17/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
6