1 member| Recommend |
| Comment |
| Email this article |
| Print this article |
| Get news alerts |
| RSS Feeds |
 Share
|
Digg
Mixx
Linked In
Facebook
Twitter
DeliciousSouthampton Village came out of court victorious on Tuesday after a jury decided that the 2003 strip search of a female suspect was justified and did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights.
The lawsuit also named two current members of the police department, Officer Anthony Gallo and Sergeant Darren Gagnon, and two members who have since retired, Officer Marla Donovan and Chief Jim Sherry.
Stacey Hartline, 21 years old at the time, had been pulled over in Southampton Village on January 6, 2003, because her truck was missing a rear license plate.
Jeltje DeJong of the Smithtown law firm Devitt Spellman Barret, the attorney representing the village and its co-defendants, said Ms. Hartline was also pulled over because Officer Gallo saw her smoking a marijuana pipe.
When she opened the door, the cab smelled of marijuana smoke and he saw a still-burning pipe, Ms. DeJong said. Ms. Hartline was laughing and giggling, she added.
Ms. Hartline told Officer Gallo that he might find more marijuana in her car, though there were only stems, seeds and roaches, according to court documents.
The village argued that Ms. Hartline was wearing loose fitting clothing, an indicator that she might have been hiding more marijuana. Officer Gallo arrested Ms. Hartline and charged her with a misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana. He called in Officer Donovan to perform a strip search of Ms. Hartline in a female holding cell.
Ms. Hartline argued in her lawsuit that she suffered “extreme embarrassment, distress, physical and psychological pain and discomfort” as a result of the search. Ms. DeJong said Ms. Hartline had been seeking close to $6 million in damages.
Ms. Hartline’s attorney, Frederick Brewington of Hempstead, said that he and his client are disappointed by the outcome and a bit puzzled by the jury’s decision in light of the facts weighing heavy in her favor.
Ms. DeJong said the jury concluded that the strip search was justified because police had reasonable suspicion Ms. Hartline had contraband.
Ms. Hartline had argued that the police department had a policy of routinely strip searching all female suspects and not male suspects. Ms. DeJong said that is not the case and the Village Police search only suspects who they have a reasonable suspicion are hiding contraband or weapons.
She said it was also untrue that the strip search was ever broadcast on monitors in the station—the camera pointing at the cell was turned on only after the search and it is connected to only one monitor for the female cell jail guard, she said.
In 2006, a U.S. District Court issued a summary judgment that favored the village and directed the court clerk to close the case, finding that the Village Police had cause for reasonable suspicion Ms. Hartline was hiding more marijuana. But last October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sent the case back to the district court and ordered that a jury trial be held.
more
Add a comment
Total comments by Happy: 2
Total comments by intheknow911: 55
I do not recall ever reading about this case so I truly did not the know the facts until June 2nd when the trial began. When I read this article, I was extremely amazed and disappointed that the facts in this article are so distorted.
Officer Gallo testified that he saw Stacey spoking a marijuana pipe while he was at the 711 parking lot. Her windows are tinted and pictures of ... more her pickup truck were produced as evidence to show the degree of the tint. In addition, in his police report he stated that he pulled her over to a missing plate; nothing about seeing her smoking a pipe.
As far as her loose fitting clothes which indicated to the police that she was hiding "contraband on her person", that also was not necessarily elaborated in their testimony since it was in January and she was wearing her work uniform.
In addition, after Officer Gallo arrested Stacey and put handcuffs on her, she was never advised of her Miranda Rights which we, the jury, were not allowed to consider. I still don't know why her rights were not read and why we were not allowed to consider that to determine the integrity of the police officers but those instructions were given to us by the judge.
I will not elaborate on specific details of this case in order to protect Stacey's privacy but I will tell you this.
We did not vote for the police because we thought that a "strip search" performed on Stacey was justified. We had to vote for the police because of the definition of "reasonable suspicion" that was given to us. Unfortunately, the law is black and white and while many of us thought that the South Hampton Police Department deserved to be punished, the law is the law and we had to abide by those laws as jurors.
I can only hope that three things take affect by this case...the first and foremost important, that Stacey can put this whole nightmare behind her and move on; second, that the Police Department in the village of South Hampton learned a valuable lesson in the law concerning strip searches and making sure that documentation and police reports are accurate; and third, making sure that something like this never happens again...the second time, you may not able to claim your "victory".
Total comments by Juror: 4
Total comments by intheknow911: 55
In respone to you "once a cop always a copy - not" - You have some nerve - you sound like you are a member of the Village PD. Unless you have "walked" in Stacey's shoes - keep you ignorant comments to yourself.
Total comments by WHB: 5
How many people will be violated and killed by these police officers before something is done?
Total comments by notahappylocal: 4
Total comments by notahappylocal: 4
Total comments by intheknow911: 55
Total comments by intheknow911: 55
Total comments by notahappylocal: 4
How about we have a face to face meeting and discuss this mater - JUST PROMISE TO LEAVE YOUR REASONABLE SUSPICION, HANDCUFFS AND VIDEO CAMERA HOME - IN OTHER WORDS DON'T BE ON DUTY WITH THE S.H. VILLAGE PD WHEN THIS MEET TAKES ... more PLACE.
Total comments by WHB: 5
How does this case end up back in front of the judge that threw it out in the first place? THAT is the true injustice.... Who knows who?
Total comments by Dunker137: 10
Total comments by intheknow911: 55
Total comments by je: 5
Total comments by Juror: 4
Total comments by je: 5
Enough ... more already, you were not in Court (or perhaps you were) you have your biased/ignorant opinion and I have mine.
Total comments by WHB: 5
Total comments by WHB: 5
Total comments by Happy: 2
Total comments by Dunker137: 10
Total comments by je: 5
Judy and Steve Wilson
Total comments by WHB: 5
Total comments by je: 5
Were you in the court room??? Because your side was the side that did all the "staged testimony." And for an officer to say "Yes paper work was not perfect! People make mistakes!"....how pathetic. A job worth doing is a job worth doing well!!!
Total comments by notahappylocal: 4
I can inform the public about the testimony that was given and seemed to far fetched but I will not do that. As I mentioned, I will not elaborate on specific details in order to protect Stacey's privacy as well as the privacy of the defendents.
Total comments by Juror: 4
things were left out, twisted,and made very "blue"even the Judge was one sided.and the excop that couldnt get his day in court would have made all the unthruths right again.
Total comments by je: 5
Total comments by JohnPalmBay: 5
Total comments by JohnPalmBay: 5
The juror above also clearly ... more stated. “We did not vote for the police because we thought that a "strip search" performed on Stacey was justified. We had to vote for the police because of the definition of "reasonable suspicion" that was given to us” .
Going back to October of 2008, a panel of three Judges wrote a decision on this case. The appellant judges most certainly know the law on “reasonable suspicion” and on marijuana. Here are some clips of what they wrote:
Thus, even if there were a departmental policy of strip searching all arrestees without making any assessment of particularized circumstances, the relevant question is still: Do the circumstances of Hartline’s arrest s support a reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person? We believe they do not. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the facts of this case could have led a reasonable officer in Officer Gallo’s position to suspect that Hartline was illicitly concealing drugs on her person. Officer Gallo found no useable narcotics in Hartline’s vehicle, nor did he see Hartline take any suspicious actions which might have suggested she was hiding something as he approached her vehicle. Officer Gallo did not notice anything about Hartline’s physical appearance that suggested she was secreting drugs on her person, nor did he engage in a less invasive pat down search that suggested the presence of contraband. Hartline answered every question that Officer Gallo asked her about drugs truthfully, yet Gallo did not even ask Hartline if she had any drugs on her person. Furthermore, Harline had been arrested for nothing more serious than a B-misdemeanor. (“[A] strip search of a person arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs . . . is not justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has drugs . . . hidden on . . . her person. . .This court expressly rejected the proposition that it is reasonable to strip search every inmate booked on a drug related charge. (arrest for misdemeanor drug offense does not support reasonable suspicion necessary to justify strip search). ......but rather to the case’s list of “factors which may be taken into account in determining the issue of [the] reasonableness” of a search, including: (1) excessive nervousness; (2) unusual conduct; (3) an informant’s tip; (4) computerized information showing pertinent criminal propensities; (5) loose-fitting or bulky clothing; (6) an itinerary suggestive of wrongdoing; (7) discovery of incriminating matter during routine searches; (8) lack of employment or a claim of self-employment; (9) needle marks or other indications of drug addiction; (10) information derived from the search or conduct of a traveling companion; (11) inadequate luggage; and (12) evasive or contradictory answers. Id. at 976-77. However, of these factors, only the fifth and seventh apply in this case, and, in context, neither gave strong support for an inference that Hartline was secreting drugs on her person, much less in her person. Ultimately, if the facts of this case amount to reasonable suspicion, then strip searches will become commonplace. Given the uniquely intrusive nature of strip searches, as well as the multitude of less invasive investigative technique s available to officers confronted by misdemeanor offenders, that result would be unacceptable in any society that takes privacy and bodily integrity seriously. Thus, we must conclude that Hartline’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because she was subjected to a strip search by the Southampton Police in the absence of reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person. ........ in this case, we conclude without hesitation that Hartline’s rights were violated.
The jury also ONLY got to see SHVPD rules and procedures on prisoner safety and handling. The SHVPD has absolute nothing on strip searches in their 4 page general order. The jury never got the opportunity to see Suffolk County’s 25 page general order that clearly states: Strip Searches: The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value in our society, and strip searches is a significant intrusion into an individual’s personal privacy. Therefore, strip searches should never be undertaken routinely, and never without clear legal justification.
There is also one particular comment on this page that need to be addressed, while most aren’t worth the time responding to one portion clearly is: Happy said… “Fact is she was smoking pot in a "crack pipe" as her own stepfather testified too! That is for sure reasonably suspicion” Happy, have you read the applets court’s decision - clearly states: (“[A] strip search of a person arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs . . . is not justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has drugs . . . hidden on . . . her person.) Stacey Hartline was never charged with being under the influence nor would that “for sure” be reasonable suspicion. I pray you’re not an officer of the law Happy.
Every citizen needs to know they have rights. If Miranda rights are for questioning, there needs to be rights read for strip searching. If there is no such law one needs to be put in effect right this second. If any person is ever getting strip searched by the SHVPD, ask and demand the camera in the cell is covered in some way before you take one item of cloths off.
If there is ever a person who doesn’t get their rights read to you, please always remember you have rights until you are proven guilty in a court of law. Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Miranda right to remain silent. Know your rights and you will not be abused.
Finally, I am appalled and horrified at this verdict and the fact the jury only got a quarter of the evidence they needed to make an informed decision. There is also something to be said about Hartline’s step father being a 27 year veteran of the Southampton Town police and having this done to his daughter. It is apparent the SHVPD has no regard. At the least, the professional courtesy extended could have been that Hartline could have kept her panties on. There was testimony by the defendants that the males keep their boxers on. I can tell the public that is very far from what happened to Ms. Hartline.
Total comments by Justice : 4
Total comments by Juror: 4
Add a comment