Are group strip searches of inmates at Multnomah County's Inverness Jail a violation of their constitutional rights?

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered the case Tuesday of Joseph Cunningham, one of thousands of inmates who had to undergo the strip searches after every kitchen duty shift at the jail in Northeast Portland.

The inmates were required to expose and manipulate their genitals and bend and squat in the presence of at least nine other inmates.

Cunningham, in custody at Inverness from September to October 2011, complained that the searches violated his civil rights and were even more humiliating because they were done in the presence of other inmates with no privacy.

As a result, the county began requiring dividers in November 2011 to afford some privacy. A curtain is drawn over the windows of the room where searches are done. They're visual-only inspections, with no physical contact and last less than a minute, according to the county.

But Cunningham and others argue that the searches remain unconstitutional and represent an "exaggerated response to security interests.''

A U.S. District Court judge in 2016 dismissed Cunningham's lawsuit against the county, finding valid reasons for the jail to search inmates to ensure prisoners aren't smuggling contraband from the kitchen.

Cunningham's appeal of the dismissal notes that sheriff's deputies supervise kitchen workers and staff account for all utensils and equipment for each shift.

Jail officers have found no dangerous contraband during any of the mass strip searches, nor has an inmate been disciplined for possessing contraband after a kitchen duty shift, according to Cunningham's lawyers.

"Yet for more than a decade, kitchen workers endured intrusive mass strip searches without a scintilla of privacy,'' attorneys Tonna K. Farrar and Leonard Berman wrote on Cunningham's behalf.

Jackie Kamins, a Multnomah assistant county attorney, said the federal appellate court has upheld "visible body cavity strip searches'' when there's a reasonable suspicion of contraband in a jail or where there's an opportunity to access contraband.

In this case, there was such an opportunity, Kamins said.

Inverness Jail houses between 700 and 900 inmates, some serving sentences and others awaiting trial. The jail has open dormitories. Since 2012, the jail has recorded more than 500 instances of contraband, including alcohol, drugs, needles, batteries and lighters recovered from inmates, according to the county.

Inmates serving sentences are required to work. Those in the kitchen have access to knives, can lids, wooden pallets, metal pieces of kitchen machinery, food and even plastic wrap that can create a security concern, Kamins said.

Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen asked during the hearing why the group searches had previously been done without any privacy protections.

"This was a highly intrusive search, and it was done in group settings, where inmates are lined up in front of each other,'' Nguyen noted. "Is there something that justifies that sort of group search?''

Kamins responded, "Nobody had complained, and it was the more efficient way to conduct the search.'' It enabled deputies to search more inmates at one time, and privacy panels aren't required for a strip search to be constitutional, she added.

"A visual body cavity search, while undoubtedly is intrusive, has been recognized as one of the lesser means to search an inmate,'' Kamins said. "It's non-tactile.''

The appeals panel, hearing arguments in Portland this week and next week, will issue a written ruling at a future date.

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian