Lawsuit alleging Rock Hill officers conducted strip search on Celanese Road sent to federal court
A Rock Hill woman’s lawsuit alleging that two city police officers improperly subjected her to an invasive strip search on Celanese Road two years ago has been transferred to federal court, where a judge has ordered that attorneys for both sides try to settle the claim during the next seven months.
Through the lawsuit, which was filed in December, Angela Ruth Doctor and her lawyer, Jake Moore of West Columbia, are seeking an unspecified amount of actual and punitive damages. Moore claims that his client was “wrongfully forced to strip naked in public” and “deprived of her right to be free from unjust search” during a traffic stop in Rock Hill on Dec. 20, 2012.
In recent court filings, the city of Rock Hill’s lawyer, David Morrison of Columbia, says a search was conducted after Doctor was pulled over, but the incident did not happen the way Doctor claims in her lawsuit. The city’s response to the lawsuit denies any wrongdoing.
The city “stands by the actions of its officers and believes that the officers acted appropriately,” Morrison said last week. “We are confident that a jury will feel the same when the facts come out.”
He could not comment on specific questions about the case because of the ongoing litigation, Morrison said. “Instead, the city expects to present the facts to the court at the appropriate time and looks forward to the opportunity to do so and to defend itself and its officers.”
Since The Herald first reported in December on Doctor’s lawsuit, Rock Hill officials have released some documents from the 2012 incident. The records show that police accused Doctor of having four grams of marijuana during the late afternoon traffic stop and search.
The police department made the partially redacted incident report available after the newspaper filed a Freedom of Information Act request.
The incident report states that Rock Hill Officer Robert Jenkins was assisting another officer on a separate traffic stop on Celanese Road when he smelled “a very strong odor of marijuana” coming from a nearby vehicle. Jenkins then pulled over the car for “a drug investigation.”
The report indicates at least two adults were inside the car. Another officer, Sarah Blair, was called to assist Jenkins, the report and the lawsuit state.
When the female suspect – identified in the lawsuit as Doctor – exited the car, police told her she would be searched. Then, “she removed a plastic baggie with marijuana roaches and blunts in it from the front of her pants,” the report states.
Blair then searched Doctor and arrested her, court and police records show. The incident report does not give details of the search.
Doctor’s lawsuit claims she was detained in the back of Jenkins’ patrol car while he searched her vehicle and waited for Blair to arrive at the scene. Doctor was “ordered” to take her clothes off for the search, the lawsuit alleges.
Doctor claims she was subjected to a “cavity search” outside, resulting in her being exposed on the side of Celanese Road, according to the lawsuit and statements Moore made to The Herald in December. The lawsuit does not specifically claim that either officer touched Doctor.
Drug charge dismissed
Though Doctor’s name is not listed on the police report provided to The Herald, an attorney for the city said the document was provided in response to a written request from the newspaper for records related to the traffic stop involving Doctor in 2012. The suspect’s name was removed from the police report because the person’s criminal charge was expunged, the report indicates.
In South Carolina, people accused of crimes are eligible to have their records expunged if they are found not guilty at trial or if the charges are dropped, among other reasons.
Because the record was expunged, city officials said they could only release the partially redacted incident report from 2012.
The newspaper had also requested a copy of Doctor’s booking photo and any audio or video recordings from the traffic stop. South Carolina law allows police agencies to withhold some records from the public after a criminal charge has been expunged.
It’s unclear what led to Doctor’s record being expunged. Last week, Doctor told The Herald the charges were dropped by the court and she went to a medical center on Dec. 20, 2012 – the day of the alleged search – for a drug screen that came back “clean.”
The original drug charge no longer appears on Doctor’s criminal history. York County court records show that Doctor was last arrested more than 10 years ago.
Doctor’s attorney has claimed the Rock Hill police officer may have targeted Doctor because of her prior arrests. Still, Moore said, authorities do not have the right to do a body cavity search on a person just based on their criminal record.
Court records show that Doctor has prior convictions on drug and weapons charges from 1999. In that case and in a grand larceny case from 2002, she pleaded guilty. A separate charge for having contraband in 2003 was dismissed.
For those convictions, Moore has said, Doctor has “paid her debt to society” and has since turned her life around.
Police policy bans cavity searches
Rock Hill Police Department officials said in December they would conduct an internal investigation of the claims made in Doctor’s lawsuit. Last week, Morrison, attorney for the city, said no investigation has been completed “because the city just learned of the allegations.”
Doctor “never made any complaint to the city other than to file litigation seeking money. ... The city was never aware of any issue until she filed litigation,” Morrison said.
Rock Hill Police have an internal investigation process for residents, but there’s no record of Doctor formally filing a complaint with the city before the lawsuit.
The accusations against the two officers center on an alleged body cavity search – something police officers are explicitly banned from doing in Rock Hill Police Department policy. Only medical personnel are allowed to conduct body cavity searches when a search warrant is signed by a judge, the policy states.
Strip searches of suspects and inmates are allowed, by policy, under some circumstances.
The policy states that strip searches will not be done on people who are arrested for traffic violations or minor offenses of a non-violent nature, unless the officer has “articulatable and reasonable suspicion to believe the individual is concealing contraband or a weapon.”
If a strip search is needed, “it will be done in the holding facility out of the public view” with department members present who are the same gender as the person arrested, according to the policy. In her lawsuit, Doctor alleges the improper search happened on the side of Celanese Road.
Officers are required to document strip searches in police incident reports when they occur. The report from Doctor’s arrest mentions a search but does not specify what kind.
Department policy also calls for officers to obtain search warrants “whenever practical” but searches without a warrant are permitted if they relate to the circumstance of the arrest and are necessary to prevent a suspect from destroying evidence or are necessary for officer safety. Searches are also allowed if a person gives consent to the officer.
In its recent filing in federal court, the city of Rock Hill claims “consent” as a defense. The Herald asked Morrison whether the Rock Hill officers had Doctor’s verbal consent to perform a search, and he said he could not comment on specific facts from the arrest.
This story was originally published February 7, 2015 at 4:58 PM with the headline "Lawsuit alleging Rock Hill officers conducted strip search on Celanese Road sent to federal court."