By of the

Fourteen more people who say they were wrongly strip-searched or subjected to body cavity searches by Milwaukee police officers want to join one of several pending federal civil rights cases that raise similar claims.

Their attorneys with Samster, Konkel & Safran have asked to intervene in the case because their claims share common issues of fact and law. The lawyers say that they are prepared to participate in a scheduling conference next month, and that joining the existing case wouldn't cause unnecessary delay but would actually be more efficient in the long run than filing separate new actions.

Since June, a dozen lawsuits have been filed by 20 plaintiffs over alleged illegal strip and body cavity searches since one former officer, Michael Vagnini, was convicted and sentenced to 26 months in prison.

A judge assigned to four of the cases has set them on a fast track for resolution, while the city has argued to separate some of the plaintiffs in cases with multiple claimants in a single case.

The case in which the 14 new plaintiffs want to intervene already has 13 plaintiffs. It is assigned to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman.

The accompanying complaint identifies the new plaintiffs only by their initials.

It names some of the same defendants as other cases, plus some new officers or supervisors. Not all are accused of performing the illegal searches; some knew of the practice and did not do anything to stop it, according to the complaint. There are 36 named defendants in addition to the city.

The complaint states that there has been an ongoing, widespread pattern of constitutional violations by Milwaukee police and cites four policies as the cause — deficient hiring, failure to train, failure to discipline and a custom of condoning violations.

The first 39 pages of the complaint lay out a history of what it calls Milwaukee police misconduct as part of the claim that officers keep violating rights because the behavior is tacitly condoned by department culture.

The next 50 pages detail the times, places and nature of the searches conducted against the 14 plaintiffs.

The suit lists 12 claims for relief, including that various defendants violated substantive and procedural due process rights, used excessive force and committed false arrest.