Alghny Cty Prison v. Allegheny , 124 F. App'x 140 ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-21-2005
Alghny Cty Prison v. Allegheny
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1975
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Alghny Cty Prison v. Allegheny" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1442.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1442
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-1975
ALLEGHENY COUNTY PRISON EMPLOYEES
INDEPENDENT UNION; CHARLES MANDERINO,
individually and on behalf of the Members of ACPEIU,
Appellants
v.
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY;
CALVIN A. LIGHTFOOT, Warden;
ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-10175)
District Judge: Hon. Joy F. Conti
Argued December 14, 2004
BEFORE: AMBRO, VAN ANTWERPEN and
STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: March 21, 2005)
Bryan Campbell
220 Grant Street - 6th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
and
Steven H. Bowytz (Argued)
Bowytz & Bowytz
220 Grant Street - 7th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorneys for Appellants
Michael H. Wojcik
County Solicitor
Robert L. McTiernan (Argued)
Assistant County Solicitor
Allegheny County Law Department
445 Fort Pitt Boulevard
300 Fort Pitt Commons Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorneys for Appellees
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Because we write only for the parties who are familiar with the facts, we do not
restate them below. Appellants Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union
and Charles Manderino (collectively “Appellants”) appeal the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania’s refusal to enjoin Appellees County of
2
Allegheny, Warden Calvin A. Lightfoot, and the Allegheny County Jail (collectively
“Appellees”) from conducting warrantless pat-down searches of employees entering the
Allegheny County Jail. Appellants claim that the searches, conducted randomly and
requiring “the removal of outer garments, shoes and belts, but not socks, and [same sex]
patdowns over the abdomen and groin area that do not involve groping or massaging,”
App. Appellants at 23, violate their Fourth Amendment rights.1 We will affirm.
I.
We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error and assess its legal
conclusions de novo. The ultimate decision to grant or deny the injunction is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. Highmark, Inc. v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 276 F.3d 160, 170
(3d Cir. 2001); see also In re Diet Drugs, 369 F.3d 293, 304 (3d Cir. 2004);
Warner-Lambert Co. v. Breathasure, Inc., 204 F.3d 87, 89 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2000).
II.
To secure an injunction, a party must show: (1) the existence of a meritorious
claim; (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is denied more serious than
the harm to the nonmoving party if it is granted; and (3) an absence of conflict with the
interest of the public. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982).
Essentially for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s thorough Memorandum Order
1
In the proceedings below, Appellants claimed that the searches violated not only their
right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment, but also their
right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. On appeal, however,
Appellants claim only that their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated.
3
of February 4, 2004, we are satisfied that the District Court correctly denied injunctive
relief.
Appellants failed to show that their rights under the Fourth Amendment are being
violated. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against “unreasonable searches
and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend IV (emphasis added). However, reasonable searches
do not offend the Constitution. See, e.g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 147
(1925). To determine if a search is reasonable, courts must balance “the need for the
particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.” Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 US. 520, 559 (1979).
Here, the District Court found that searches of personnel entering a detention
facility are necessary to control the entry of contraband into the facility and to promote
the security of employees and inmates. We agree. In addition, the District Court found,
and we are satisfied, that employees at incarceration facilities have a diminished
expectation of privacy while on the premises of the facility. See McDonell v. Hunter, 809
F.2d 1302, 1306-07 (8th Cir. 1987) (finding that correction officers have a diminished
expectation of privacy “while they are within the confines of the prison”); Sec. & Law
Enforcement Employees v. Carey, 737 F.2d 187, 202 (2d Cir. 1984) (determining that “in
light of the difficult burdens of maintaining safety, order and security that our society
imposes on those who staff our prisons” correctional officers have a diminished
expectation of privacy while on the job). The District Court did not err when, in
4
balancing these two interests, it determined that the need to prevent the introduction of
contraband in a detention facility outweighs the privacy interests of the facility’s
employees. Nor did the District Court err in subsequently determining that pat-down
searches of correctional officers and prison employees serve the same purposes and
reflect the same reduced expectations of privacy as pat-downs conducted at border
checkpoints which we have held are “presumed to be reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.” Bradley v. United States, 299 F.3d 197, 201 (3d Cir. 2002); see also
Carey, 737 F.2d at 204 (noting that “[n]ot unlike persons crossing the borders of our
country, correction officers, under proper circumstances may be” searched “to control the
flow of contraband”). Thus, like searches conducted at border checkpoints, random,
routine pat-down searches of prison employees are reasonable and may be conducted
without a warrant or probable cause without violating Appellants’ constitutional rights.
Having concluded that the challenged searches do not violate the Fourth
Amendment, the District Court had no basis for granting injunctive relief. It accordingly
did not err in declining to do so.
III.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
5