University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Wood v. Hancock County JC-ME-0002
Docket / Court 1:02-cv-00069-GZS ( D. Me. )
State/Territory Maine
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Special Collection Strip Search Cases
Case Summary
On April 26, 2002, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Hancock County, the Hancock County Sheriff, and the Hancock County Jail Administrator, in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked for compensatory and ... read more >
On April 26, 2002, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Hancock County, the Hancock County Sheriff, and the Hancock County Jail Administrator, in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging he was strip-searched in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

On May 27, 2001, plaintiff alleged that he was arrested and taken to the Hancock County Jail where he was told to strip and shower while being watched by officers, and was then subjected to a visual body cavity search, which an officer told him was "routine procedure." Plaintiff alleged that because this search occurred after he requested an attorney, it violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel. On July 20, 2001, plaintiff was again arrested and taken to the Hancock County Jail, where he was subjected to a clothing search and a shower while being watched, but not a body cavity search. On July 11, 2001, plaintiff had two contact visits with his attorney. After the second visit, plaintiff was subjected to a visual body cavity strip-search.

On January 7, 2003, the Court (United States Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuck) recommended denying defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.

On February 12, 2003, the District Court (Judge George Z. Singal), adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and: (1) held that complaint stated a claim, precluding judgment on the pleadings, and (2) denied summary judgment for defendants because there were genuine issues of fact as to whether the jail policy of strip-searching misdemeanor arrestees after contact visits was reasonable and whether the jail had a custom of strip-searching arrestees upon admission. The Court found no evidence that any jail employee suspected that plaintiff concealed contraband. The Court found that strip-searching arrestees after contact visits could be unreasonable because Defendants did not provide evidence of the dangerousness of the inmate population or history of contraband problems and plaintiff was not given the choice of having a non-contact visit. The Court held that post-arrest searches require reasonable suspicion that an arrestee concealed contraband. While defendants argued that these searches were rogue events which defendants were not responsible for, the Court found sufficient evidence to infer that there was a practice of strip-searching arrestees.

Wood v. Hancock County, 245 F.Supp.2d 231 (D.Me. 2003).

After a jury trial, on March 20, 2003, the jury found for defendants. The jury found that the May 27, 2001 or July 10, 2001 searches were not conducted as a result of Hancock County practice. Furthermore, the jury found that plaintiff was not unreasonably strip-searched on July 11, 2001. Plaintiff appealed.

On December 31, 2003, the First Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Frank M. Coffin, Bruce M. Selya, and Norman H. Stahl) affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a partial new trial. The Court affirmed the verdict as to plaintiff's post-contact strip-search on July 11, because a blanket strip-search policy was justified after contact visits. The Court ordered a new trial on claims relating to plaintiff's post-arrest searches on May 27th and July 10th, because the jury instructions defined strip-searches too narrowly, as only searches where the officer inspects an arrestee's mouth and underarms.

Wood v. Hancock County Sheriff's Dept., 354 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2003).

On May 5, 2004, the parties settled.

On June 11, 2004, the parties stipulated to dismissal without costs or interest to any party.

Docket: CV-02-69

Shira Gordon - 03/31/2012

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Constitutional Clause
Unreasonable search and seizure
Strip search policy
Type of Facility
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) County of Hancock
Plaintiff Description Jail inmate strip-searched on each two separate occasions when he was arrested for misdemeanor charges, and a third time after meeting with his attorney.
Class action status sought No
Class action status outcome Not sought
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Voluntary Dismissal
Filed 04/26/2002
Case Closing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Jail Strip-Search Cases: Patterns and Participants
Date: Spring 2008
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University in St. Louis Faculty)
Citation: 71 Law & Contemp. Problems 65 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Court Docket(s)
D. Me.
JC-ME-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
D. Me.
Complaint [ECF# 1]
JC-ME-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
D. Me.
Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF# 2]
JC-ME-0002-0002.pdf | Detail
D. Me.
Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge [With "Recommended Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment" attached] [ECF# 36] (245 F.Supp.2d 231)
JC-ME-0002-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Google Scholar
D. Me.
Verdict Form [ECF# 55]
JC-ME-0002-0003.pdf | Detail
D. Me.
Expert Trial Transcript
JC-ME-0002-0004.pdf | Detail
U.S. Court of Appeals
Appellate Decision (354 F.3d 57)
JC-ME-0002-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Google Scholar
D. Me.
Stipulation of Dismissal [ECF# 75]
JC-ME-0002-0005.pdf | Detail
show all people docs
Judges Coffin, Frank Morey (First Circuit) show/hide docs
Singal, George Z. (D. Me.) show/hide docs
JC-ME-0002-0006 | JC-ME-0002-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Collier, Sandra Hylander (Maine) show/hide docs
JC-ME-0002-0001 | JC-ME-0002-0005 | JC-ME-0002-0007 | JC-ME-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Marchesi, Peter T. (Maine) show/hide docs
JC-ME-0002-0002 | JC-ME-0002-0004 | JC-ME-0002-0005 | JC-ME-0002-0007 | JC-ME-0002-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -