## Facts

- Jane Peckham, a Wisconsin prisoner, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional strip searches at Taycheedah Correctional Institution and Outagamie County Jail, which housed state prisoners under contract.
- She alleged she underwent approximately 35 strip searches; the searches were visual inspections of a naked inmate without body-cavity intrusion.
- At the county jail, searches were routinely conducted on arrival from another facility, on return from court or medical visits, after contact visits, and during general cell-block searches.
- Under Department of Corrections practices, similar searches occurred, including when an inmate entered segregation and when additional time was added to segregation.
- Peckham asserted many searches were unreasonable because she was often in handcuffs and leg irons and allegedly never out of the sight of guard escorts.
- She sought injunctive relief and monetary relief against the department and individual officials.

## Issues

1. Whether repeated visual strip searches conducted under general jail and prison policies violate the Fourth Amendment (and relatedly the Eighth Amendment) when the inmate is often restrained and continuously supervised.
2. Whether the number of searches and Peckham’s circumstances could render otherwise routine, policy-based searches an exaggerated or impermissible response to legitimate security concerns.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the challenged searches were reasonable security measures because they occurred within established policies tied to inmate movement, contact visits, segregation status, and institutional searches.
- The court rejected the argument that frequent repetition, constant supervision, or restraints alone made the searches unconstitutional.
- The court found no evidence that searches were conducted outside policy, involved physical intrusion, or were carried out in an abusive manner that would create a triable constitutional claim.

## Legal Principles

- Prison strip searches are evaluated under a deferential reasonableness standard that accommodates legitimate penological and institutional security objectives.
- Routine visual strip searches associated with transfers, returns from court or medical trips, contact visits, segregation placement, and general security searches are generally reasonable given contraband-control interests.
- Frequency of searches, without evidence of improper purpose, abusive execution, or deviation from policy, does not by itself establish a Fourth or Eighth Amendment violation.
- Continuous guard observation and restraints do not eliminate contraband risks in a way that constitutionally requires individualized exemptions from generally applicable search policies.

## Conclusion

The court upheld routine, policy-based visual strip searches of an inmate as constitutionally reasonable security practices, concluding that neither the number of searches nor the inmate’s supervision and restraints created a triable claim absent evidence of abuse, intrusion, or departures from established procedures.


Peckham v. Wis. Dep’t of Corr., 141 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 1998)