## Facts

- T.M., a 12-year-old student, was involved in a fight at school subject to a zero-tolerance policy.
- A school resource officer arrested T.M. based on probable cause for assault-related offenses, handcuffed her, performed a pat-down, and transported her to a county juvenile detention center.
- A youth court judicial designee made a probable cause determination for simple assault, and T.M. was held pending her mother’s arrival.
- The detention center’s intake procedures required all juveniles to undergo a pat-down and metal-detector search.
- The center also maintained a blanket policy requiring a visual strip and cavity search for juveniles charged with theft, drug, or violent offenses who would be placed in the general population.
- Because T.M. was detained for simple assault (treated as a violent offense for intake classification) and slated for general population placement, she was subjected to a visual strip and cavity search.
- T.M. was released later that evening, and no charges were ultimately pursued.
- T.M.’s mother sued the county, alleging the strip and cavity search violated the Fourth Amendment; the district court granted the county partial summary judgment on that claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the county’s visual strip and cavity search of a juvenile detainee held on a probable cause determination for simple assault violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the deference and standard articulated in Florence for intake searches of adult detainees entering general population applies in the juvenile detention context.
3. Whether the plaintiff made a sufficient showing that the blanket search policy was an exaggerated or irrational response to institutional security concerns.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the county on the Fourth Amendment claim.
- The court applied Florence’s deferential approach to correctional officials’ intake search policies and held the same deference extends to juvenile detention administrators.
- The court concluded the plaintiff did not make a substantial showing that the policy was an exaggerated or otherwise irrational response to security needs for juveniles entering general population.
- Although the court noted weaknesses in the county’s justification (including limited evidence that these searches discovered contraband beyond less intrusive measures), it held the record did not establish a Fourth Amendment violation under the governing standard.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florence, officials may use suspicionless intake search policies for detainees entering general population, and courts generally defer to institutional judgments about security unless the response is shown to be exaggerated or irrational.
- The deference afforded to correctional officials in evaluating intake search policies applies to juvenile detention facilities as well as adult jails.
- A plaintiff challenging a facility-wide intake search policy bears the burden to make a substantial showing that the policy is an exaggerated or otherwise irrational response to security concerns.
- Fourth Amendment analysis balances the search’s intrusiveness against institutional interests in safety, order, and contraband control, with significant weight given to administrators’ security judgments in the intake context.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a juvenile detention center’s blanket visual strip and cavity search policy for certain charged offenses when placing youths into general population did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the record presented, because the plaintiff failed to show the policy was an exaggerated or irrational security measure under the deference required by Florence.


Mabry v. Lee Cnty., 849 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2017)