Tynisa Williams v. City of Cleveland, Ohio

In a prior decision of this Court, blanket strip and visual cavity searches of detainees entering the general population of a local jail were held to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 556 U.S. 318 (2012). Regardless, this Court’s ruling specifically exempted searches involving “the touching of detainees,” and those involving “intentional humiliation and other abusive practices.” Id., at 339. The Court also continues to require a balancing of the privacy rights of detainees with the need for the strip searches in question, and that prison policies be reasonably related to penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 483 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987). The questions presented are: Whether the court below erroneously held that the physical delousing of all detainees entering the Cleveland Workhouse, whereby delousing solution was sprayed onto the genitals and anus of naked pre-trial detainees with a pressurized spray canister, was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment given reasonable de minimis alternatives to this procedure, including self-application of the solution. Whether the court below erroneously held that routine group strip searches and physical delousing of all detainees entering the Cleveland Workhouse, whereby detainees were strip searched and deloused in groups of three, were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment given reasonable de minimis alternatives to this procedure, including the utilization of privacy partitions recommended by state regulators.