Tinetti v. Wittke
7th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2020Sharon Brown v. Polk County, Wisconsin 7th Cir.
- 2019Brown, Sharon v. Polk County, Wisconsin W.D. Wis.
- 2010Batchelor v. Fenwick S.D. Ind.
- 2010Brown v. Short D.D.C.
- 2005Calvin v. Sheriff of Will County N.D. Ill.
- 2004State v. Nieves Md.
- 2002State v. Hampton Wash. Ct. App.
- 2002Helton v. United States D.D.C.
- 2001Doan v. Watson S.D. Ind.
- 2000Skurstenis v. Jones 11th Cir.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Jill TINETTI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee WITTKE, Sheriff Racine County, Jane Doe, a Racine County Matron whose name is unknown, and County of Racine, Defendants-Appellants.
Attorneys
- Richard H. Kjeldgaard, Racine, Wis., for defendants-appellants.
- Terry W. Rose, Kenosha, Wis., Raymond M. Dall’osto, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.
Plaintiff-appellee Jill Tinetti brought this suit challenging the constitutionality of the defendants-appellants’ practice of strip-searching persons arrested for non-misdemeanor traffic offenses. The searches were conducted upon all such offenders who were detained overnight in the Racine County jail due to an unwillingness or inability to post bond before their initial appearance in court. The searches were conducted despite the absence of any probable cause to believe that the detainees were concealing contraband or weapons on their bodies. The district court ruled that the appellants’ practices violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and granted Ti-netti both declaratory and injunctive relief. We affirm the judgment of the district court, which is published at 479 F.Supp. 486 (E.D.Wis.1979), and adopt the district court’s Memorandum and Order as the decision of this court.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. Although the searches were discontinued in response to this lawsuit, the district court ruled that the situation was “capable of repetition yet evading review”. 479 F.Supp. 486, 489 (E.D.Wis. 1979). This ruling was not challenged on appeal.