Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Jill Tinetti v. Lee Wittke, Sheriff Racine County, Jane Doe, a Racine County Matron Whose Name is Unknown, and County of Racine

620 F.2d 160

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-04-24
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • describing “the visual inspection of the anal and genital areas” as “demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified, humiliating, terrifying, unpleasant, embarrassing, repulsive, signifying degradation and submission”
  • "The searches were conducted despite the absence of probable cause to believe that the detainees were concealing contraband or weapons on their bodies."
  • unconstitutional to conduct visual strip searches of people arrested for non-misdemeanor traffic offenses

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jill Tinetti v. Lee Wittke, Sheriff Racine County, Jane Doe, a Racine County Matron Whose Name is Unknown, and County of Racine. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
91 opinions
TINETTI v. WITTKE,620 F.2d 160(7th Cir. 1980)
JILL TINETTI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LEE WITTKE, SHERIFF RACINE COUNTY, JANE
DOE, A RACINE COUNTY MATRON WHOSE NAME IS UNKNOWN, AND COUNTY OF RACINE,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 79-2442.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued April 11, 1980.
Decided April 24, 1980.
Richard H. Kjeldgaard, Racine, Wis., for defendants-appellants.

Terry W. Rose, Kenosha, Wis., Raymond M. Dall'osto, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Before CASTLE, Senior Circuit Judge, SWYGERT and SPRECHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Plaintiff-appellee Jill Tinetti brought this suit challenging the constitutionality of the defendants-appellants' practice of strip-searching persons arrested for non-misdemeanor traffic offenses. The searches were conducted upon all such offenders who were detained overnight in the Racine County jail due to an unwillingness or inability to post bond before their initial appearance in court.1The searches were conducted despite the absence of any probable cause to believe that the detainees were concealing contraband or weapons on their bodies. The district court ruled that the appellants' practices violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and granted Tinetti both declaratory and injunctive relief.Page 161We affirm the judgment of the district court, which is published at479 F. Supp. 486(E.D.Wis. 1979), and adopt the district court's Memorandum and Order as the decision of this court.

[2] Accordingly, the decision of the district court is

[3] AFFIRMED.Page 591
  1. Although the searches were discontinued in response to this lawsuit, the district court ruled that the situation was "capable of repetition yet evading review".479 F. Supp. 486,489(E.D.Wis. 1979). this ruling was not challenged on appeal. ↩