Press release from Vickers Russe Law, PLLC:
RE: Russe v. Madison Sheriff’s Department, et al, 22-cv-221 Settlement
On October 06, 2023 Madison County Sheriff finally agreed to change its strip search policy to settle Plaintiff Rupa Vickers Russe’s lawsuit in case no. 22-cv-221 filed in the Western North Carolina District Court. Ms. Russe’s claims stemmed from an unconstitutional strip search she endured in 2019 which was ordered by former Madison County Deputy Daniel Joyner, now a Mars Hill Police Officer, weeks after Ms. Russe reported Daniel Joyner to his Supervisor for his ignorant and improper service of a Court Order to Ms. Russe.*
This settlement is significant to citizens in Madison County and across the nation as it signifies that Sheriffs – and their insurers – recognize that there are circumstances when strip searches are not necessary (such as when a mother is detained for taking a cell phone from her daughter), and which exposes the taxpayer to the potential of a substantial monetary award due to a Deputy violating a detainee’s Constitutional rights. It is incumbent upon legislatures across the United States to provide specific guidance, such as this very clear strip search policy, when funding police and Sheriff’s departments. Backing the blue is best achieved by giving specific guidance for unified enforcement, and protection of civil liberties. Establishing clear policies, like the one in this settlement, cultivates confidence and respect in our police and Sheriff’s departments by the citizens who rely on them, and fund them.
Prior to filing her lawsuit, Ms. Russe originally sought to change the policy by running for public office twice in 2020 (N.C. House of Representative and Madison County Commissioner), and by unsuccessfully requesting the policy change in 2022 with the Sheriff. She has undertaken extensive efforts to get this policy changed, and is relieved to now see it changed.
THE SETTLEMENT
NEW POLICY:
The Madison County Sheriff has agreed to modify its strip search policy at the Madison County Detention Center (the Madison County Jail) as follows:
The new policy explicitly requires all individuals to have: 1. a pre-strip search pat-down; and 2. any individual who is being placed in solitary confinement will not be strip searched unless there is articulable “particularized justification” for conducting the strip search (such as when there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a detainee is concealing a weapon or contraband); and 3. that this “articulable particularized justification” must be articulated to the individual being detained prior to the strip search being conducted.
This new policy will be in effect at any time Sheriff James “Buddy” Harwood is Sheriff.
OLD POLICY
Prior to this settlement, the Madison County Sheriff’s Detention Center policy was to strip search anyone and everyone, regardless of the reason for them being placed (pre-arrest or post-arrest) in the jail (this could include for traffic misdemeanors). The old policy would allow any Deputy or Jailor to use the strip search invasion of privacy to exact their own sort of unfettered, pre-guilty punitive revenge on any detained individual they disliked using the awesome authority of the Sheriff’s Department to control the County jail, in circumvention of the intent of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Under this new policy, no Madison County Deputy will be able to misuse the Madison County Detention Center’s solitary confinement resources, and right to strip search, for retaliatory or biased reasons, as Ms. Russe alleges Daniel Joyner did to her because she was a woman who stood up to him and was a single-mother. If followed, this new policy will prevent future lawsuits against the Sheriff and County which would normally result in a substantial award of monetary damages for violations of a citizen’s Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.
FINANCIAL REMUNERATION TO MS. RUSSE
This case was never about Ms. Russe gaining financial compensation from Madison County taxpayers, it was always about changing the Madison County Sheriff’s Department strip search policy to conform to the United States Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on government invasion of a person’s right to privacy (as supported by existing governing Supreme Court case law), and to avoid distrust in Deputies and impact to the taxpayer purse. See Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-945). With this settlement, Ms. Russe has sought only financial remuneration for the hours she has worked to prosecute her claims to get this policy changed to protect all citizens in Madison County (and to cover the fees she has had to pay to file this lawsuit and to chase down Daniel Joyner who has intentionally sought to avoid service in this case while on active duty as a Mars Hill Police officer, see attached). This total was based on her present hourly fee as an Attorney of $200 per hour, and totals $9771.80. As a pro se Plaintiff, Ms. Russe was unsuccessful in having these fees identified by the Defendants as “Attorney fees”, even though they are.
*UNDERLYING BACKGROUND TO THE CASE:
On October 18, 2019 Daniel Joyner: “detained” Ms. Russe without instructing her what charges she was being detained for; handcuffed her, and walked her to the Madison County Detention Center (the County Jail) and ordered Madison County Detention Center Jailor Morrow to conduct a strip search, after which Ms. Russe was instructed to put her street clothes back on, and was placed in solitary confinement for the entire time she was kept in the Jail. It is clear Ms. Russe was never expected to be placed in general population in the jail, based on: 1. the basis for her charge of simple assault (due to her attempt to take a cell phone from her minor child), 2. no prior criminal record, 3. no concern for her possession of contraband as no pat down was conducted prior to the strip search, 4. instruction for her to put her street clothes back on immediately after the strip search, 5. and issuance of an arrest warrant approximately 4 hours after the strip search, which contained allegations that had no witness or supporting affidavit (which is required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-304(d); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. 15a-401(b)(2)).
The question in this case was why was the strip search conducted? The answer may be found in the fact that prior to her being detained by Daniel Joyner, she had reported Daniel Joyner to his supervisor for his aggressive and ignorant service of a notice of hearing to Ms. Russe, as all the facts point to at the most Ms. Russe should have been issued a criminal summons, not arrested.
WHY ARE STRIP SEARCHES BAD?
For those who have never been strip searched by a government official, it may seem an unimportant right to protect. “How bad can it be? It’s not like they are touching you!” However, those who have endured strip searches at the hands of the government understand exactly why the founding forefathers amended our Constitution to include this protection. Strip searches at the hands of the government are emotionally damaging and create a palor of distrust in one’s government long after a person is found innocent through proper adjudication of the charges against them. In the United States of America a person is innocent until proven guilty. Period. Although the Supreme Court has held that once found guilty and incarcerated a person forfeits their constitutional protections to varying degrees, the Supreme Court has also made it clear that until proven guilty violations of a citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights should be limited to very rare circumstances, such as when safety of the general population of a jail is at issue. In this case, the overarching question raised by Ms. Russe’s case was whether strip searches of individuals who would never see the general population in a jail while detained, and possessed no threat via contraband or past criminal history, were constitutional. They aren’t. This settlement resolves that issue in Madison County, and protects citizens from this violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
RETIRED MAGISTRATE OLAF GODDARD
Retired Madison County Magistrate Olaf Goddard was not sued for his participation in the alleged violations that Ms. Russe brought to the Court in this case due to his unfettered absolute immunity as an officer of the court. However, the arrest warrant he issued contained allegations to which there were no witness(es), and the warrant was unsupported by an affidavit by any witness to the alleged events, because there were none. The arrest warrant listed Madison County Deputy Francine Denton as a witness to the allegations printed on the arrest warrant, but she was not present at any time during the incident between Ms. Russe and her daughter, therefore the allegations he was presented with were without any reliable source. Thus, no probable cause existed to detain without an arrest warrant, which Ms. Russe alleges Magistrate Goddard was aware of at the time he issued the arrest warrant because he witnessed her being taken to the jail by Daniel Joyner approximately 4 hours before he issued the warrant. Additionally, the warrant was not time stamped which Ms. Russe alleges indicates Magistrate Goddard’s attempt to cover up that the strip search occurred before the issuance of the warrant.
A Magistrate’s misuse of their awesome authority, of absolute immunity, results in the lack of confidence and trust in the judiciary. It is in the citizens of the United States, and all well-intentioned Magistrate’s, best interest for its governments, state and federal, to legislate to prevent the misuse of the awesome authority of Magistrates whose misconduct results in distrust of the judiciary.
This press release is a lie, but it is what to be expected out of Rupa Russe. Look up the federal judge’s order on Pacer; it vindicates the court system and the magistrate Olof Goddard – Maybe Olaf Goddard should sue Rupa Russe for slander and defamation. As a taxpayer in Madison County, I find it pathetic that my tax dollars went to pay for this frivolous lawsuit just because the sheriff’s department wanted it to end. It is not like Rupe, who has failed at two attempts to be elected, has a bunch of successes in the Federal Courts.