The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Evangeline Roscom ("Roscom") originally sued the City of
Chicago ("City"), Cook County ("County") and certain City and
County officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983")
charging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and
Fourteenth Amendments.*fn1 This action remains pending against
the County defendants.*fn2 Roscom seeks compensatory damages
of $100,000, and she also asks punitive damages against the
This action has been tried on the facts (to which the
parties have stipulated) without a jury. In accordance with
Rule 52(a) this Court finds the facts specially and states its
conclusions of law thereon in the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law.
Findings of Fact ("Findings")
1. Roscom was arrested April 5, 1980 by City police officers
pursuant to a legal arrest warrant charging deceptive practice
(Stip. ¶ 6). Roscom was then taken to the City facility at 1121
South State Street and questioned as to checks Roscom had
written that had not been honored by her bank (Stip. ¶ 7).
2. Roscom was fingerprinted and detained at the City
facility for several hours. She then experienced severe chest
pains and was taken to the Mercy Hospital emergency room for
examination (Stip. ¶ 8). After the examination she was returned
to the City facility (Stip. ¶ 9).
3. On April 6 Roscom (still at 1121 South State Street) was
placed in the custody of the County Sheriff (the "Sheriff")
and taken before a judge for the setting of bail (Stip. ¶ 10).
When Roscom was unable to post bail, the Sheriff transferred
her to the County jail facility at 26th and California,
Chicago, Illinois (the "County Jail") (Stip. ¶ 11). Upon
Roscom's arrival at the County Jail, pictures were taken, some
was completed and she was then placed in a County Jail cell
(Stip. ¶ 12).
4. After several hours Roscom was taken from the County Jail
cell to a room with other females, all of whom were ordered to
line up in single file and take off their clothes for a search
(Stip. ¶ 13). Roscom removed her clothes and proceeded to where
the matron was. After a frontal visual search by the matron
Roscom was instructed to turn around, spread her legs and bend
over for a visual genital area search (Stip. ¶ 14). Only women
were in the room when the searches took place (Stip. ¶ 17). At
no time during either search did anyone touch Roscom (Stip. ¶
16). After the search was completed Roscom picked up her
clothes, took a shower and was taken back to a County Jail cell
(Stip. ¶ 15).
5. County's Department of Corrections General Order 78-23
governs body searches (Stip. ¶ 18 and Ex. 1):
B. An inmate is subject to a search of his or
her person, either clothed or unclothed, when
there is reasonable cause to believe the inmate
may have contraband concealed on his or her
person. Such searches or inspections may also be
a routine requirement for inmate movement into or
out of certain high security risk areas.
1. An unclothed body search includes visual
inspection of all body areas, including the
anal and genital areas; therefore, correctional
personnel will not conduct unclothed body
inspection of an inmate of the opposite sex.
This does not preclude routine search of
clothing worn by an inmate without regard to
the sex of the inmate or of personnel making
2. Rectal and vaginal searches or inspections
of an inmate may not be made by anyone other
than qualified medical personnel.
6. In support of the claimed reasonableness of the search in
this cue, the County defendants have stated the procedure for
processing pretrial detainees such as Roscom:
(a) All such detainees are transported to the
County Jail without segregation as to ...