Facts

In September 2004, plaintiff Elin Spellman was traveling to a campground when a California Highway Patrol officer stopped her because her car was swerving. The officer conducted a field sobriety test on plaintiff and took her to the Humboldt County police station. The plaintiff, whose blood alcohol level was 0.16, was charged with DWI.

At the station, the plaintiff was told to take off her clothing above her waist, except for one piece of clothing of her choice. Two corrections officers gave her these instructions, which were part of a standard intake procedure. As plaintiff changed, she turned to the wall, and the male officer faced away. The plaintiff was detained for about four hours before she was released.

One week after the plaintiff was detained, her father contacted the police department with concerns about the plaintiff's treatment while she was detained. He was told that there was a video in the lobby the night the plaintiff was brought in. The county police later contacted the plaintiff's father and informed him that there was nothing extraordinary in the footage taken that evening. The plaintiff's attorney later notified the department of the plaintiff's lawsuit.

The plaintiff's complaint alleged that officers made her walk around the lobby of the station without a shirt, which was a violation of her civil rights. She also claimed that the videotaping of the intake procedure violated her right to privacy. The plaintiff sought to sue on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, but her attempt to gather class members was unsuccessful.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the officers performed an illegal search of plaintiff's person. She was forced to walk around the lobby so the officers, including the male officers, could inspect her. At one point, the plaintiff was forced to stay shirtless.

Moreover, the videotape had been destroyed. The only reason the department would have for destroying the videotape would be to hide damaging evidence of corrupt conduct.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The department denied liability, as the plaintiff went through the intake process, not a strip search. The orders given to plaintiff complied with the county's standard intake process, which is in line with all civil rights laws. The requirement that detained individuals must remove all clothing above the waist except for one piece of clothing, is a safety measure designed to protect the officers and detained individuals. Further, for safety purposes, two officers must be in the room. The steps taken here were therefore proper, as the female officer assisted the plaintiff while the male officer looked the other way, yet remained in the room for safety purposes. Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, those two officers were the only officers present during the intake process.

Moreover, the videotape had not been purposely destroyed to conceal any corrupt conduct. The company that provides the surveillance destroys the videotapes after three weeks. Because the plaintiff's father did not make further inquiries regarding the treatment of his daughter, the department had no reason to ask the surveillance company to save the videotape.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed an unspecified amount to cover pain and suffering damages.

Injuries

The plaintiff asserted that she was humiliated at the police station, as she was made to display her half naked body to several officers.

Result

Summary judgment was granted for the defendants, as the plaintiff did not suffer a violation of her civil rights when she underwent the intake process. Further, the judge held that the plaintiff's privacy rights were not violated, as the video footage was only shown to a few individuals who used it in the scope of their employment duties.