Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Just out. (Portland, OR) 1983-2013 | View Entire Issue (July 21, 1995)
'i t »rei * > I ’k *«* i\ v'i.! • Justice served , An appellate court backs local AIDS activists ruling that strip searches were unreasonable ▼ by Inga Sorensen “This protest had clearly been billed as a non ortland resident Michael Ambrosino re violent act of civil disobedience,” Smith recalls. “I counts the moment six years ago when remember because there had been a lot of back and he was ordered to strip his clothes, bend forth at our ACT UP meetings about how to handle over and spread his cheeks. As if that this protest. We decided the best way was the weren’t bad enough, he was forced to do nonviolent way. We even contacted the authorities so in front of several other men, both acquaintan prior to the action to let them know it would be ces and total strangers. nonviolent. So not only did they know this was “It was an extremely embarrassing and humili going to happen, they knew it was going to be ating experience,” says Ambrosino, who was 28 peaceful.” years old at the time and had never before been “We went to the FDA offices and some of us arrested. “I don’t believe we had anticipated that went inside and sat down in front of the door. We anything quite like that was going to happen.” were chanting and yelling a little bit, but nothing Catherine Smith, then in her early 40s, has her more,” continues Ambrosino. “A group of federal own unsettling memories: “I was told to com marshals came up to us and said they would have pletely undress, ordered to lift my breasts and turn to arrest us if we didn’t move. We didn’t, but we around in a full circle. I don’t remember if I was also didn’ t resist arrest. They put plastic cuffs on us told to bend over.” and took us out to the van. We were brought to Like Ambrosino, Smith, also of Portland, had federal courthouse and put in a holding cell.” never been arrested and had no criminal record or Men and women, he says, were placed in sepa history of violent activity. The two were among a rate holding tanks. The men were strip searched in group of 10 activists— six men and four women— plain view of other male detainees. The women who were arrested in February 1989 during a sit-in were taken individually into a private room where at the Food and Drug Administration offices on they were strip searched by a female marshal. Northwest Broadway in Portland. Many of those In their lawsuit, all the plaintiffs claim that the activists belonged to the then-fledgling direct ac searches were unreasonable under the Forth tion group ACT UP-Portland. They were arrested Amendment, but the men also claim the searches and detained at the federal courthouse, where they were conducted in an unreasonable manner be were strip searched by U.S. marshals and later cause they occurred in front of other detainees. All released. The group filed a lawsuit claiming the 10 plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages strip searches were unreasonable under the Fourth from the federal government on the ground that the Amendment. searches constituted the tort of invasion of privacy Six years after that experience, the plaintiffs under Oregon law. may finally taste the justice they’ve been seeking According to the U.S. Marshals Service’s writ for so long. On June 22, a three-jud^e panel of the ten policy, strip searches are prohibited unless 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco “there is reason to believe that the prisoner may be backed the plaintiffs’ contentions by reversing carrying contraband or is considered suicidal or an earlier decisions by U.S. District Judge Malcolm escape risk.” F. Marsh, who had twice dismissed the charges The appellate panel rejected each of the claiming the searches were justified. government’s arguments that the searches were Defendants in the case include the marshal who justified. Among those arguments: the tire of a ordered the strip search, his supervisors and the prisoner transport van had been slashed, the activ federal government. The appellate court has re ists were wearing winter clothing, and the activists manded the case back to Marsh’s court for trial on were confrontational. the question of damages that the plaintiffs suffered According to court documents, Deputy Robert from the searches. Oliverio, the marshal who ordered the strip searches, “We knew we were right all along, so I’m not testified that he thought the tires of one of the vans surprised by the court’s ruling,” says Tom Steenson, had been slashed, and thus thought the activists the plaintiffs’ Portland attorney. “The really nice posed a security threat. thing about this ruling is that the appellate court “We were in handcuffs,” says Smith. “You tell knocked down every single one of the arguments me how that could have happened.” the federal government put forth about why they According to the judges’ ruling, “Deputy thought the strip search was justified.” P Smith says, “If the marshals had really been concerned that we were carrying contraband, they would have checked us before they put us in the van. They didn’t do any of that. They just took us into the cells and told us to take all our clothes off.” Some could speculate this incident is reflective of a more broad-based hostility the government has towards AIDS and gay rights activists. In response to a request under the Freedom of Infor mation Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently released documents showing the agency had kept files on ACT UP chapters, as well as the Gay Men’s Health Crisis in New York. And just last month, Secret Service agents donned blue rubber gloves when a group of gay and lesbian elected officials visited the White House. The action was viewed by many across the nation as an outrageous insult. “I certainly think [these episodes] are reflective of a certain mentality some in the government may hold [toward gay people and AIDS activists],” says Steenson. “One could view it as a pattern.” Smith adds, “During the protest six years ago, we wore pink rubber gloves to parody the authori ties, who often wore rubber gloves. I thought maybe we had made a little progress over the years, but sometimes I wonder.” IS Y OUR PET PART OF THE FAMILY? THEY’RE Tender, loving care for the furry and feathered members o f your family! BACK! ♦ FLEA BATH ♦ FLEA DIP ♦ FLEA PRODUCTS ♦ BYE BYE FLEAS Oliverio, by his own admis sion, had no actual knowledge about the plaintiffs’ conduct at the demonstration, had no knowledge whether the plain tiffs had at any time been near the van with the allegedly slashed tires, and made no in quiries to determine whether the plaintiffs may have been involved in the alleged slash ing. “Had he made any inquir ies,” continues the panel, “he might have learned that the detainees— who were es corted to the vans while flex- cuffed— did not and could not have punctured the tires of the van. Despite the fact that Deputy Oliverio could have learned about the conduct of the demonstrators simply by asking one of the other depu ties who had been present at the demonstration and arrests, Deputy Oliverio made no such inquiries.” As for the defendants’ claims that the searches were warranted because the activ ists were wearing wintercloth- ing, the court writes: “We re ject the argument that wear ing winter clothing alone could give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the wearer of those clothes may be concealing contraband. The argument ap pears to have no limiting principle.” According to court papers, the marshals also claimed the search was warranted because plain tiffs had been chanting slogans such as “ Aren’t you afraid of us?” “You’ve got blood on your hands,” and “Mark Hatfield is gay.” The panel, however, said, “[N]othing in the slogan seems to indicate that the plaintiffs were likely to be concealing or carrying any weapons or other contraband. Rather, the singing and chanting appear to be simply elements of the disruptive version of civil disobe dience in which members of ACT UP were en gaged.” According to Steenson, the defendants have 45 days from the panel’s June 22 decision to petition to have the entire appellate court hear the case. He is hopeful, however, that his clients and the defen dants will reach a settlement. “Most strip searches are unconstitutional, in cluding this one. The panel was very clear in its ruling,” he says. Ambrosino adds, “There was no reason for this search to occur. It was clearly designed to intimi date and disempower us. That was the sole purpose of these searches.” PHOTO BY JAY BROWN just ou t ▼ July 2 1 , 1909 ▼ 19 D r. P a tric ia E . H u ff, D .V .M . a n d A s s o c ia t e s A DO-IT-YOURSELF DOG & CAT WASH W-F 11-7 S-S 9-5 3832 NE SANDY ♦ 288-5280 2 5 1 9 E. BURNSIDE, PORTLAND CALL 233-5001
