On September 15, 2011, former prisoners at the Western Massachusetts Regional Women's Correctional Center ("WCC") filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Hampden County Sheriff's Department. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought money damages, alleging that the Sheriff's Department violated their Fourth Amendment rights by allowing male officers to be present for and videotape non-emergency strip searches.
Following discovery and arguments on the specifics of the Sheriff Department's policies with regards to non-emergency strip searches, on May 23, 2013 the District Court (Judge Michael A. Ponsor) granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class consisted of 178 current and former WCC inmates who were videotaped by male correctional officers during strip searches. The Sheriff's Department appealed, but the First Circuit denied hearing the appeal.
On August 26, 2014, Judge Ponsor granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding that the mere presence of male corrections officer during non-emergency strip searches violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights. Further proceedings were deemed necessary to determine the issue of liability and potential monetary and equitable relief. The Sheriff's Department appealed the order to the First Circuit. While that ruling was pending on appeal, the court stayed further proceedings on Oct. 3, 2014.
Meanwhile, the parties reached a settlement in March 2015: the state (not the county) agreed to pay $675,000. $475,000 was allocated to the plaintiffs' attorneys for fees and $22,000 for costs; $20,000 to the lead plaintiff; $2,000 each to four plaintiffs who were deposed, and the remaining class members were set to receive at least $850, and more depending on the claiming rate. In addition, defendants agreed to change their policy to prohibit male officers from holding the video camera during strip searches except in exigent circumstances, as defined in the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulation, which defined "exigent circumstances" to be "any set of temporary and unforeseen circumstances that require immediate action in order to combat a threat to the security or institutional order of a facility." PREA Standards § 115.5. The defendants were to provide plaintiffs with statistics, a copy of the video of the full movie and strip search and any reports or materials documenting the need for the male videotaping up until June 30, 2016.
On April 2, 2015, the First Circuit remanded the case back to the district court in response to the parties' joint motion requesting the remand for purposes of holding a settlement fairness hearing.
A preliminary fairness hearing was held on April 9, 2015, and Judge Ponsor agreed to proceed to a final fairness hearing. On September 10, 2015 the court found the settlement fair and reasonable, and approved it; it also granted $475,000 in attorneys' fees and $22,000 in costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The First Circuit terminated the appeal on Sept. 16, 2015 in response to the parties voluntarily dismissing the appeal.
The case is now closed.
Brendan Brown - 09/18/2014
Abigail DeHart - 10/21/2016
Virginia Weeks - 03/09/2018
compress summary
