Edwin Blaisure v. Susquehanna County ( 2015 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 15-1360
____________
EDWIN A. BLAISURE, Individually and on behalf
of Classes of Similarly Situated Persons,
Appellant
v.
SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY;
NICHOLAS CONIGLIARO,
Individually and in his official capacity as
Warden of the Susquehanna County Correctional Facility
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 3-10-cv-02336)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 8, 2015
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 4, 2015)
____________
OPINION*
____________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Edwin Blaisure appeals the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of
Susquehanna County. We will affirm.
I
For six weeks in 2010, Blaisure was held in Susquehanna County Correctional
Facility (SCCF) as a pretrial detainee. During that period, he left SCCF three times: to
attend a proceeding in state court; to attend a proceeding before a state magistrate judge;
and to go to the dentist. Pursuant to SCCF’s policy of strip searching every inmate upon
their departure from and arrival to prison, Blaisure was strip searched twice on all three
occasions.
In November 2010, Blaisure brought a putative class action on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated inmates, claiming that SCCF’s strip search policy violated his
Fourth Amendment rights. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Florence v.
Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, which held that a regulation
requiring strip searches of every inmate who entered a prison did not violate the Fourth
Amendment because it was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests—
namely, preserving and protecting prison security. 132 S. Ct. 1510, 1517–18 (2012). The
County then moved for summary judgment asserting, inter alia, that SCCF’s strip search
policy was constitutional under Florence. The District Court granted the motion and
2
Blaisure now appeals.1
II
We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s summary judgment and apply
the same standard it did. Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir.
2014). We affirm a summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a).
III
On appeal, Blaisure has narrowed his claim substantially. He now argues only that
SCCF’s blanket policy of strip searching inmates upon leaving the prison to attend court
appearances violates their Fourth Amendment rights because it is unrelated to prison
security or keeping contraband out of jail. Blaisure Br. 9 (citing Florence, 132 S. Ct. at
1514 (explaining that a prison strip search policy must be implemented “in response to
problems of jail security”)). He asserts that, as a resident of SCCF, he was already
prohibited from possessing contraband and therefore should not have to be searched prior
to leaving. He also claims that because the two strip searches he contests occurred before
trips to the courthouse—which has its own security protocols—they were not related to
any legitimate penological interest. Because these searches “violate a person’s most basic
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3
privacy interests,” Blaisure argues, SCCF shouldn’t be allowed to conduct them without
providing evidence that they address actual problems of jail security. Blaisure Br. 20.
In Florence, the Supreme Court reiterated that prison regulations may interfere
with important constitutional interests so long as they are “reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests.” 132 S. Ct. at 1515 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 82
(1987)). The Court recognized, moreover, that correctional officials must be given
“substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face,” id., and
that “courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains
substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to
the problems of jail security,” id. at 1513–14.
Here, as in Florence, SCCF’s policy of strip searching inmates leaving the prison
to appear in court was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. As the
District Court found, the searches prevented inmates from smuggling weapons or
contraband out of prison that could harm prison security guards, transporting officers,
court personnel, or even members of the public. See Goff v. Nix, 803 F.2d 358, 368 (8th
Cir. 1986) (holding that a prison’s policy of strip searching inmates who are leaving did
not violate their Fourth Amendment rights and noting in particular that “the public nature
of courts and the frequently crowded surroundings make the presence of a weapon that
the inmate has managed to smuggle with him . . . particularly dangerous”). Further
evidence of SCCF’s penological interest in searching inmates upon leaving prison was
4
found in Warden Nicholas Conigliaro’s testimony that inmates have crafted makeshift
weapons while behind bars and that the reason “nothing has been found [when prisoners
leaving SCCF have been searched] is because it’s not a secret that they’re going to be
strip-searched leaving the facility.” App. 90.
In sum, because the District Court did not err in finding that SCCF’s strip search
policy serves a legitimate penological interest, we will affirm.
5