Atlanta- Atlanta’s federal appeals court, with apparent reluctance, ruled last Wednesday that a North Georgia county’s policy of strip-searching every prisoner booked into jail violated the Constitution.

The court also noted that the policy didn’t necessarily violate the rights of individual prisoners who were searched, so long as jailers had “reasonable suspicion” that a detainee might possess weapons or contraband.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made the ruling in the case of Janet M. Hicks, who sued Habersham County’s sheriff and jail supervisor after she was strip-searched following her 2001 misdemeanor arrest for a domestic-violence dispute with her estranged husband. Hicks v. Moore, No. 03-13686.

According to the 11th Circuit’s ruling, Hicks was strip-searched by a female sheriff’s department employee and was not touched during the search.

About three years ago — and after Hicks’ strip search — the sheriff in charge of the jail at that time, Richard Moore, changed the jail’s policy, and the facility no longer strip-searches everyone who is booked.

Hicks’ suit did not name the county as a defendant but targeted Moore, the jail commander and other individuals who supervised or participated in her detention and search. Current Habersham County Sheriff DeRay Fincher could not be reached for comment.

A unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the jail did not violate Hicks’ rights, because her arrest for a violent crime justified a strip search. The 11th Circuit effectively ended Hicks’ federal case against the jail and reversed a district court ruling that denied the Habersham government employees’ motion for summary judgment.

Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Frank M. Hull and U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield of the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Edmondson, with apparent unease, ruled that circuit precedent didn’t allow Habersham’s practice of strip-searching everyone booked at the jail. This ruling marks the second time in the past four months that Edmondson has written an opinion expressing dissatisfaction with the circuit’s precedent on strip searches.

His opinion stopped short of endorsing circuit precedent or condemning the jail’s policy. He added, in a footnote, “We personally question that such a practice violates the Fourth Amendment,” noting that the circuit’s precedent justifies strip searches only when a “reasonable suspicion” indicates that a detainee could possess weapons or contraband, according to the court’s 2001 ruling in Wilson v. Jones, 251 F.3d 1340.

Edmondson pointed out that the “reasonable suspicion” standard remains stricter than what the U.S. Supreme Court requires.

In May, in another opinion written by Edmondson, a full 12-judge panel of the 11th Circuit voiced unease with its precedent on strip searches. In that case, Edmondson wrote, “most of us are uncertain that jailers are required to have a reasonable suspicion of weapons or contraband before strip-searching — for security and safety purposes — arrestees bound for the general jail population.” Evans v. Stephens, 407 F.3d 1272.

In Hicks’ case, the court found that the strip search did not violate her constitutional rights, eliminating the basis for her federal suit.

“Just because she was strip-searched at a jail that had a search practice that would generally violate the Constitution does not mean every search that was conducted actually violated the Constitution,” Edmondson wrote.

Because Hicks was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of family violence battery — obviously, a crime of violence, according to the opinion — jail officials had sufficient reason to suspect hidden weapons or contraband, Edmondson wrote.

However, the opinion pointed out that the arresting officer and jail supervisor in Hicks’ case testified that they did not suspect Hicks of having weapons or drugs.

“Whether reasonable suspicion existed at the time is a question of law to be determined ultimately by judges, not policemen or jailers,” Edmondson wrote. “The subjective intentions and beliefs of the jailers conducting the strip-search are ‘immaterial to the Fourth Amendment analysis,'” according to the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386.

Terry E. Williams of Lawrenceville, Ga., who represented Moore, the former Habersham sheriff, and other county employees, could not be reached for comment.

One of the attorneys representing Hicks, Scott D. Delius of the Delius Law Firm, said Thursday that he was disappointed with the outcome and that his client hasn’t decided whether she’ll pursue the case.

“We at least feel good about the fact that there’s no longer a blanket strip-search policy at the jail and that jails are taking the issue seriously,” said Delius, who represented Hicks along with J. Matthew Maguire Jr. of Balch & Bingham.