Woman claims jail strip search violated her rights
By Nick Hytrek Journal staff writer | Posted: Friday, February 16, 2007
A woman has sued Woodbury County, claiming the strip search and a cavity search she said was performed on her at the county's jail violated her constitutional rights.
Maureen Rattray is challenging the county's policy that allows jailers to strip search offenders booked into the jail. That policy, the lawsuit said, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The county's jail administrator said no cavity search was done, and the county's policies have passed state review.
Rattray, of South Sioux City, was booked into the jail in August on a charge of first-offense operating while intoxicated, a serious misdemeanor.
According to Woodbury County policy, people arrested for serious misdemeanors and felonies are strip searched so jailers can ensure the offender has no hidden weapons or drugs.
"Woodbury County's need for strip/cavity searching (Rattray) did not outweigh the invasion of personal rights entailed in such a search," the lawsuit said.
The county's policy follows state law, said assistant chief deputy sheriff Rob Aspleaf, who oversees the jail. The policy, he said, has never been questioned by the state jail inspector, who as part of his annual jail inspection reviews the county's jail policies and procedures.
"This policy has been implemented for years," Aspleaf said. "We are in compliance."
Jailers would not have performed a cavity search on Rattray, Aspleaf said. County policy and state law requires cavity searches be done by a licensed physician. If a cavity search is needed on a Woodbury County inmate, Aspleaf said, the inmate is taken to a hospital, where the search is performed. County jailers only remove visible items from inmates during a strip search, Aspleaf said.
"We do not do any type of probative search," he said.
According to the lawsuit:
After the first phase of booking was finished, a female jailer took Rattray into another room, where she was told to take her clothes off for a strip search.
The jailer denied Rattray's request to close the door so that men outside could not see her naked.
A second female jailer entered the room and mocked Rattray, who had begun to cry while removing her clothes, and then ripped Rattray's halter top off of her.
When Rattray told them she was not wearing a tampon, the second jailer shoved her against a wall and performed a cavity search of her vagina. Nothing was found.
The jailers did not allow Rattray to wear her jail suit while transferring her to a cell, forcing Rattray to press it against the front of her body while walking past men.
Inside the cell, the second jailer put Rattray face down on the bed, held her down with a knee to her back and performed a second cavity search.
After the search, Rattray put on her jail suit and remained in her cell until she was released from jail.
Rattray is seeking an unspecified amount of damages and has asked for a jury trial.
Nick Hytrek can be reached at 712-293-4226 or nickhytrek@siouxcityjournal.com.
Maureen Rattray is challenging the county's policy that allows jailers to strip search offenders booked into the jail. That policy, the lawsuit said, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The county's jail administrator said no cavity search was done, and the county's policies have passed state review.
Rattray, of South Sioux City, was booked into the jail in August on a charge of first-offense operating while intoxicated, a serious misdemeanor.
According to Woodbury County policy, people arrested for serious misdemeanors and felonies are strip searched so jailers can ensure the offender has no hidden weapons or drugs.
"Woodbury County's need for strip/cavity searching (Rattray) did not outweigh the invasion of personal rights entailed in such a search," the lawsuit said.
The county's policy follows state law, said assistant chief deputy sheriff Rob Aspleaf, who oversees the jail. The policy, he said, has never been questioned by the state jail inspector, who as part of his annual jail inspection reviews the county's jail policies and procedures.
"This policy has been implemented for years," Aspleaf said. "We are in compliance."
Jailers would not have performed a cavity search on Rattray, Aspleaf said. County policy and state law requires cavity searches be done by a licensed physician. If a cavity search is needed on a Woodbury County inmate, Aspleaf said, the inmate is taken to a hospital, where the search is performed. County jailers only remove visible items from inmates during a strip search, Aspleaf said.
"We do not do any type of probative search," he said.
According to the lawsuit:
After the first phase of booking was finished, a female jailer took Rattray into another room, where she was told to take her clothes off for a strip search.
The jailer denied Rattray's request to close the door so that men outside could not see her naked.
A second female jailer entered the room and mocked Rattray, who had begun to cry while removing her clothes, and then ripped Rattray's halter top off of her.
When Rattray told them she was not wearing a tampon, the second jailer shoved her against a wall and performed a cavity search of her vagina. Nothing was found.
The jailers did not allow Rattray to wear her jail suit while transferring her to a cell, forcing Rattray to press it against the front of her body while walking past men.
Inside the cell, the second jailer put Rattray face down on the bed, held her down with a knee to her back and performed a second cavity search.
After the search, Rattray put on her jail suit and remained in her cell until she was released from jail.
Rattray is seeking an unspecified amount of damages and has asked for a jury trial.
Nick Hytrek can be reached at 712-293-4226 or nickhytrek@siouxcityjournal.com.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 34 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
John wrote on Sep 13, 2008 5:28 AM:
The fact that they have 'done it for years' means nothing. Look up Calumet City, Illinois. They had a policy of strip searching EVERY woman for misdemeanor or traffic violations. And it had been going on for SIX YEARS!!!
QUOTE"The police would never video something if it was illegal."
Are you kidding? Case after case is on the net.
They even have one officer that tased his PARTNER over stopping for a soft drink at a 7-11!!!
And some police would have you believe that a strip search is needed to search for weapons or drugs.
Most court houses have detectors or at the entrance to scan for weapons, either they are effective and stop the weapons, or they aren't effective and they are a waste of money.
You cant have it both ways.
And if we are depending on winning the War on Drugs, by pulling down the underpants of women & children, then we are in big trouble. "
matt wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:48 AM:
also a LEO wrote on Jun 2, 2007 10:15 PM:
Chris wrote on Mar 10, 2007 10:28 PM:
citizen wrote on Mar 9, 2007 11:28 AM: