On April 21, 2005, private attorney Mark E. Merin filed a class action civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the Solano County and Solano County Probation Department policy of subjecting juveniles to ...
read more >
On April 21, 2005, private attorney Mark E. Merin filed a class action civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the Solano County and Solano County Probation Department policy of subjecting juveniles to strip and/or visual body cavity searches at Solano County Juvenile Detention Center. Plaintiffs alleged that pursuant to the defendants' policies, juvenile detainees in their custody were subjected to strip and visual body cavity searches before such they appeared at a detention hearing and without having any reasonable suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapons. The complaint asserted claims for violations of: 1) violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2) violation of California's Bane Act, California Civil Code section 52.1(a) and Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code section 52.1(b), based on alleged use of coercion to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under article I, section 1, of the California Constitution and California Penal Code section 4030; 3) violation of California Penal Code section 4030. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification.
Defendants filed answers generally denying all allegations of wrong doing or liability. They also moved to dismiss the state law claims. The District Court (Judge David F. Levi) granted the motion in part and dismissed the state law claims for damages and the class claim under Section 52.1. The motion to dismiss the state law claims for declaratory and injunctive relief was denied. Taggart ex rel. Perry v. Solano County, 2005 WL 3325752 (E.D.Cal. Dec 06, 2005)
Discovery followed and then defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary adjudication on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims asserting that the County was shielded by the Eleventh Amendment and that the individual defendants were protected by qualified immunity. Judge Levi denied the motion. Taggart ex rel. Perry v. Solano County, 2006 WL 737017 (E.D.Cal. Mar 20, 2006).
At the time of this summary, the case was still pending.
Dan Dalton - 03/10/2008
compress summary
