Were you strip-searched in SF jails?

The Chronicle has published many articles, in recent years, on illegal strip-searches in
San Francisco county jails
(which are located not only in SF, but also in nearby San Mateo county).
Several strip-searched persons, especially womyn, have been
suing SF County.

Recently the Chron announced that several cases are being combined into a class-action lawsuit, which allows many more strippees to sue.

*[ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/02/BAGN292UCB1.DTL ]

Since my friend had been stripped naked and examined in an SF jail, she asked me to find the addresses of the two lawyers who are coordinating this class action.

For some web mavens, this would have been easy.
For me, it was difficult.
For ex-inmates who aren't computer-literate,
it may be very difficult,
or even impossible.

SF County is providing a mailing-list of arrested persons, so the plaintiffs' lawyers can send snail-mail to them. But this list may be incomplete or obsolete, especially if arrestees have moved, or if they were/are homeless, etc.

After googling myself into several blind alleys,
I got results thru

[ http://yellowpages.superpages.com ]

(I'm not recommending SuperPages.com;
just reporting my limited personal experience.)

[ If web mavens can offer tips on how to do this better,
please post comments on IndyBay.org ]


So far as I can tell,
the lead attorneys in the SF strip-search class action are
as follows:

Mark E. Merin
DICKSTEIN & MERIN
2001 P Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 443-6911
........

Andrew C. Schwartz
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Boulevard,
Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 947-1147

[ http://www.cmslaw.com ]
......
[ If this info is wrong,
please post corrections at IndyBay.org !!!! ]
......

If you think you may qualify to be a plaintiff, please
send your name and snail address
(and phone and email address)
by snail-mail to attorneys
Schwartz and/or Merin;
so they can invite you to apply,
or arrange to interview you.

Also please check the CMS website.




¡ Buena suerte !

Just Some SF Queer

........
October 15, 2004
........


* PS 1:
Here's the Chron story on notifying potential plaintiffs
in the SF class-action strip-search lawsuit:
.....
SAN FRANCISCO
Notices planned in strip-search case
Lawyers hope to identify pool of detainees for class-action suit

Elizabeth Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, October 2, 2004

As part of a potential multimillion-dollar class action suit over strip-search practices in San Francisco jails, tens of thousands of people detained during the last 2 1/2 years will soon receive court-ordered notification letters.

The letters are intended to help identify a pool of former inmates who were arrested for relatively minor crimes and strip-searched without evidence that they were hiding drugs or weapons. The number of people who receive the letters, which must be mailed by Oct. 28, could exceed 100,000, said Sacramento attorney Mark Merin. Merin and Walnut Creek attorney Andrew Schwartz are representing the plaintiffs.

San Francisco is paying to assemble a database of names and to prepare the notices and envelopes for mailing, said Alexis Truchan of the city attorney's office. The plaintiffs' side will pay postage costs, estimated at $50,000.

A Chronicle investigation last year found that the San Francisco Sheriff's Department for years conducted inappropriate and sometimes illegal strip searches. Exposing serious violations of both state law and the jail's own policy, the stories detailed numerous accounts of men and women who said they were subjected to humiliating visual body-cavity searches. Some said they were also left naked in safety cells and denied food, water or blankets.

State law prohibits strip searches and visual body-cavity searches of people held before arraignment on misdemeanors, except those involving weapons, controlled substances or violence, unless a peace officer has reasonable suspicion that they are concealing a weapon or contraband.

Faced with multiple lawsuits and a barrage of criticism, the jail shortly afterward revised its policy to no longer automatically strip-search all inmates being placed in safety cells and to stop placing people in those cells for behavior they deemed "bizarre.''

In June, a federal judge approved class-action status for a lawsuit that challenged the jail's former practices.

Similar lawsuits are pending in San Mateo and Marin counties.

Cities have paid heavily for illegal strip searches. In June, Sacramento County agreed to a $15 million settlement of litigation over its policy of visual body-cavity searches for all people booked at the county jail. Boston has settled a case for $10 million, and New York agreed to pay as much as $50 million.

In San Francisco, ads paid for by the plaintiffs' side are being published in The Chronicle and other news outlets, seeking possible members of the class.





...........

PS 2:
There may be more strip-search lawsuits,
in various California counties.
For example, here's an August 2004 story from Sacramento County,
on stripping a girl, then age 13:


August 11, 2004 - The Sacramento Bee

Another Strip Search Lawsuit

Sheriff's Department Recently Settled;
Now County's Juvenile Hall Is Accused

By Denny Walsh and Sam Stanton,
Bee Staff Writer[s]



Two months after officials agreed to pay up to $15 million to settle a lawsuit over illegal strip searches at the Sacramento County jail, the county's Probation Department has been sued over similar searches at juvenile hall.

Attorney Mark Merin, the same lawyer who won the settlement against the jail, filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court on behalf of a 15-year-old girl, who was arrested twice, once for shoplifting and another time for making a false emergency call. The suit alleges the same type of searches are being conducted on every suspect taken to juvenile hall.

Juvenile suspects, even those suspected of minor offenses, are taken into a shower room at the center on Kiefer Boulevard and subjected to visual body cavity searches before they appear for detention hearings, the lawsuit alleges.

"If this practice is pervasive, as I'm reliably informed it is, it's amazing to me the Probation Department has learned nothing from the experience of the Sheriff's Department," Merin said. "Maybe they don't talk to one another."

Reached late Tuesday, attorney Terence Cassidy, who represents the county, said: "We've not had an opportunity to investigate the specific facts and circumstances involving Mr. Merin's client.

"However, upon initial review, we believe the policy at juvenile hall on strip searches is in accord with all state and federal laws."

Cassidy said Merin submitted a Public Records Act request to the county for the policy and "we are in the process of complying with that request."

"I am frankly surprised that Mr. Merin would file a federal lawsuit without having first reviewed the policy," he added.

The suit names the county, the Probation Department, Chief Probation Officer Verne Speirs and Assistant Chief Suzanne Collins. Speirs' office said he and Collins were unavailable Tuesday afternoon. Neither responded to requests for comment. Steve DeRoss, the other assistant chief, could not be reached.

Merin won a settlement in June that could cost the county as much as $15 million over illegal strip searches of inmates coming into the county jail.

Sheriff Lou Blanas defended the practice of searching adults held on minor offenses, but the department agreed to settle and change its policy rather than continue to fight the case in court.

Merin, who has filed similar suits in other counties in California as well as in Miami, said the practice at juvenile hall is even more objectionable, in part because state law prohibits such searches of juveniles suspected of misdemeanors and infractions unrelated to violence, drugs or weapons.

"If anything, it's more offensive than doing it to adults," Merin said. "The state statute clearly applies to juveniles."

The suit was filed on behalf of a girl who was 13 years old when she was arrested in June 2002, and again in October 2002, on misdemeanor charges.

The plaintiff is not being named by The Bee because she is a juvenile.

Merin said state law specifically forbids strip searches of juveniles held on minor offenses unless there is a "reasonable suspicion" that contraband is being concealed. The law is silent on felonies.

Federal law prohibits such searches of juveniles even if they are accused of felonies, again except for charges involving violence, drugs or weapons, he said.

The suit seeks $4,000 for each juvenile subjected to such a search, plus $1,000 in attorney's fees for each instance.

Merin said there is no way to know how many juveniles have been subjected to such searches, but there could easily be thousands of potential plaintiffs.

The statute of limitations in juvenile cases is two years, but only starts to run after the person turns 18, Merin said. So, for instance, if a 10-year-old was strip searched at the hall "the county is looking at a 10-year statute of limitations," Merin said.

The lawsuit settled by the county over Blanas' strip search policies may end up covering 16,000 people, and that settlement provided for payments ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 to each class member, depending on whether they were subjected to verbal or other abuse, and how much.

That settlement, which provides for a $3 million fee for Merin, is the largest of its kind in county history.
.........................................................
###