## Facts

- Kelli Swain was arrested on a default warrant tied to an unpaid fine for operating an uninsured motor vehicle, a minor, non-violent offense.
- At the police station, Officer Edward Hayes questioned Swain about her finances and failure to pay the fine; he later characterized her behavior as unusual, while Swain denied threatening or dangerous conduct.
- Before detention, Matron Laura Spinney performed a pat frisk; no contraband was found.
- After learning Swain had a prior arrest record, Hayes instructed Spinney to conduct a strip search.
- Spinney took Swain to a private room, required her to remove all clothing, and visually inspected her naked body, including intimate areas; no contraband was found.
- Swain alleged the search caused humiliation and degradation.
- Swain sued Spinney, Hayes, and the Town of North Reading under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting Fourth Amendment and substantive due process violations and municipal liability.
- The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants; Swain appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a warrantless strip search of a minor, non-violent arrestee is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing weapons or contraband.
2. Whether Spinney and Hayes were entitled to qualified immunity for their roles in ordering and conducting the strip search.
3. Whether the Town of North Reading could be liable under § 1983 based on an official policy, custom, or failure to train that caused the strip search.
4. Whether a substantive due process bodily integrity theory provides an independent basis for relief when the Fourth Amendment directly addresses the challenged conduct.

## Decision

- The First Circuit held that, on Swain’s version of the facts, the strip search violated the Fourth Amendment because it lacked individualized reasonable suspicion.
- The court ruled the Fourth Amendment limitation on strip searches of minor-offense arrestees was clearly established at the time, defeating Spinney’s qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.
- Summary judgment for Spinney was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the Fourth Amendment claim.
- Summary judgment for the Town of North Reading was affirmed because the record did not show an official policy or custom that was the moving force behind the search.
- The court treated the dispute primarily as a Fourth Amendment matter rather than a free-standing substantive due process claim.

## Legal Principles

- Strip searches are highly intrusive and generally may not be conducted as a routine incident of detention.
- For arrestees held on minor, non-violent offenses, the Fourth Amendment requires at least individualized reasonable suspicion that the person is concealing weapons or contraband to justify a strip search.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable where the constitutional rule was clearly established and, under the plaintiff’s facts, no reasonable officer could believe the search lawful.
- Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof that an official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference in training or supervision caused the constitutional violation; a single incident or isolated decision is insufficient without evidence tying it to municipal action.
- When a specific constitutional provision governs the challenged conduct, courts analyze the claim under that provision rather than under generalized substantive due process.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit allowed Swain’s Fourth Amendment claim to proceed against the matron because the suspicionless strip search of a minor-offense arrestee was unreasonable under clearly established law, while rejecting municipal liability in the absence of evidence that the search resulted from an official town policy or custom.


Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997)