Sergeant Gary Glaze of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) endorses forced strip searches based on an assumption of non-compliance. at the Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC). In the pdf uploaded with this report he discusses the conduct of Sgt. Matthew Ingram. Ingram used force to compel my compliance with a strip search without first giving me a chance to comply voluntarily. Glaze wrote:
"Once they arrived in 4F, Sgt. lngram made the decision to cut lnmate Sullivan's clothes off to be changed into a white suit for disciplinary level 4. Sullivan had been non-compliant the entire process and there was no reason for Sgt. lngram to believe Sullivan would have been compliant with the strip search and clothing exchange. I conclude that the decision to cut Sullivan's clothes off while he was already restrained and at a position of disadvantage was the best decision to minimize the possibility of furthering the use of force."
The problem with that is that it it extends the typical scenarios in which force in justified to one in which the need for force is unknown. Normally force is legally justified if an inmate is actively or passively resisting either by forcefully fighting the deputies' efforts or just not following instructions. This justification extends to scenarios in which an deputy thinks that the inmate will not comply and decides to use force anyway based on an assumption that ordering the inmate to comply will not work. Imagine if this becomes widespread in law enforcement? It would justify tackling people as they walk down the street just because the officer thinks they will resist arrest. This is flawed even if the person is known to the officer as having a history of resisting, fleeing, etc. A cop can't justify the use of force just because he thinks giving a command won't result in compliance.
Lets look at a hypothetical scenario. A deputy is sent to the home of a suspect with an active warrant, the suspect has priors for assaulting police and resisting arrest, and the deputy personally recalls encountering the suspect before. During that encounter the suspect told the deputy that he would kill him if he ever saw him again and that he would always be carrying a gun just in case. Would that justify the deputy just shooting the suspect on sight and saying that based on his previous behavior he knew that he would not cooperate with any peaceful attempt to arrest him and that shooting him was justified to make sure that he would never have the chance to attempt to make good on his prior threats? Of course not. It would go down as the unjustified murder of civilian. Law enforcement has to at least give people the opportunity to comply before they can justify using force.