Case: DiMattesa v. Davies

2:85-03426 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: June 17, 1985

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Plaintiffs in this 1985 strip search case were arrested and charged with prostitution by the Delaware County Pennsylvania Detective's Office and forced to undergo "gynecological examination/strip search[es]." They filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming the searches were conducted without probable cause to believe that any contraband was hidden on their bodies. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed that the physician who conducted the searches removed…

Plaintiffs in this 1985 strip search case were arrested and charged with prostitution by the Delaware County Pennsylvania Detective's Office and forced to undergo "gynecological examination/strip search[es]." They filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming the searches were conducted without probable cause to believe that any contraband was hidden on their bodies. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed that the physician who conducted the searches removed their clothing, fondled them and inserted a speculum into the plaintiff[s'] vagina and anus.

On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court (Judge O'Neill) found that the prosecutor defendants had failed to recognize the difference between those prosecutorial activities which receive absolute immunity and those which receive qualified immunity, and so could not rule on the defense. The court also let stand the plaintiffs' claims that defendants were liable even if they did not personally participate in the examinations; all that is necesary to survive a motion to dismiss is the allegation that defendants had personal knowledge of and acquiesced in the alleged acts.

The court thus allowed plaintiffs' claims, except those that claimed tortious acts, and allowed amendment of claims that insufficiently plead existence of a policy or practice. We have no further information about this case.

Summary Authors

Denise Heberle (8/14/2012)

People


Judge(s)

O'Neill, Thomas Newman Jr. (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Peruto, A. Charles Sr. (Pennsylvania)

Schwartz, Stacey L. (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Defendant

D'Iorio, Ralph B. (Pennsylvania)

Pratter, Gene E.K. (Pennsylvania)

Judge(s)

O'Neill, Thomas Newman Jr. (Pennsylvania)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:85-03426

85-03427

Memorandum

Di Mattesa v. Davies

Nov. 22, 1985

Nov. 22, 1985

Order/Opinion

1985 WL 1985

Docket

Last updated March 19, 2024, 3:13 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Strip Search Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 17, 1985

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs were arrested and charged with prostitution by the Delaware County Detective's Office and were forced by defendants, against their wills, to undergo "gynecological examination/strip search[es]."

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Delaware County Detective's Office (Delaware), County

Delaware County (Delaware), County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Unknown

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Unknown

Issues

General:

Search policies

Strip search policy

Affected Sex or Gender:

Female

Type of Facility:

Government-run