On July 2, 2003, an individual action was filed against the City and County of San Francisco by the Law Offices of John L. Burris on behalf of an individual who was allegedly falsely arrested and subjected to a strip search after being transported to the county jail. The case was brought in the Northern District of California and, after being reassigned twice, was presided over by Judge Charles Breyer. The plaintiff claimed that the false arrest and strip search were in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and California state law.

This case was a companion case to Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C 03-1840 CRB (N.D. Cal.) see JC-CA-0007 in this Clearinghouse, a class-action lawsuit challenging the strip search policy of the City and County of San Francisco.

After attempts to settle the Yourke case failed, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 3, 2004, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his strip search claims and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim. The court also denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's state law claims.

On February 23, 2006, the District Court issued an Amended Memorandum and Order in the related Bull case, (a) holding that some of the defendants' policies were constitutional while others were unconstitutional and (b) finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with regard to some, but not all, claims. See Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 2006 WL 449148 (N.D. Cal. Feb 23, 2006). Based on that order, the parties in Yourke filed a second set of motions for partial summary judgment on the issues of (a) the constitutionality of the plaintiff's strip search and (b) the defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity. The District Court dismissed these motions without prejudice and stayed all further proceedings while the Bull appeal was pending. The Bull appeal, filed on March 26, 2006, was decided by Ninth Circuit on August 22, 2008. The Circuit Court affirmed the decision that the blanket strip-search policy was a violation of constitutional rights and also held that the defendants would not be protected by qualified immunity.

On September 16, 2010, the Court ruled on the parties' renewed cross motions for summary judgment, granting the defendants' motion and denying the plaintiff's motion. 2010 WL 3701789. Plaintiff's appeal of this judgment was rejected by the Ninth Circuit on December 3, 2010, for failure to respond to a November order. Sometime between the end of 2010 and May 2012, the plaintiff appealed the 2010 judgement pro se on the Fourth Amendment claim and his California Penal Code § 4030. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment on May 25, 2012. 473 Fed.Appx. 725.

On June 28, 2013, Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the Bull suit without prejudice, a class action suit related to San Francisco’s strip search policy, and approved its settlement claim.

Timothy Shoffner - 07/16/2012
Christiana Johnson - 02/07/2020


compress summary