Case Citator › Giles v. Ackerman

Giles v. Ackerman

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
746 F.2d 614
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
1999–2010
Overruled
A reviewed court has overruled this case. Giles v. Ackerman was overruled by the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc. All 34 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco rejected Giles's reasonable-suspicion requirement for strip searches of arrestees entering the general jail population. An earlier en banc decision overruled Giles's separate discussion of standing to seek equitable relief, and two other federal appeals courts rejected its strip-search rule. The four confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

34 later cases cite Giles v. Ackerman; 34 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Giles v. Ackerman?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled

  • The Ninth Circuit en banc overruled Giles's reasonable-suspicion rule for arrestees placed in custodial housing with the general jail population.

    Bull v. City and County of San Francisco · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We therefore overrule our own panel opinions in Thompson and Giles. We do not, however, disturb our prior opinions considering searches of arrestees who were not classified for housing in the general jail or prison population.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Overruled in part

  • The Ninth Circuit en banc overruled Giles's suggestion that standing to seek damages also establishes standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.

    Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We have previously held that where claims for damages and equitable relief arise from the same “operative facts and legal theory” a plaintiff with standing to seek damages also has standing to request injunctive and declaratory relief. See Nava v. City of Dublin, 121 F.3d 453, 456 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir.1983); Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614, 619 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411, 1423 (9th Cir.1987)). ... We believe that Nava 's holding that standing to seek damages serves as a basis for standing to seek equitable relief is inconsistent with Lyons, and we therefore overrule Nava and our prior decisions on which Nava relied.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Eleventh Circuit en banc rejected Giles's requirement of reasonable suspicion before strip searching people arrested for minor offenses at a detention facility.

    Powell v. Barrett · Eleventh Circuit (en banc) · filed

    In each cited case, the court of appeals concludes that because the plaintiffs were “minor offenders who were not inherently dangerous,” id. at 1272, detention officials could conduct a strip search only where there was “a reasonable suspicion that the individual arrestee is carrying or concealing contraband,” Giles, 746 F.2d at 617. In each of the cases where reasonable suspicion was lacking, the search is held to violate the Fourth Amendment. Those decisions are wrong.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Third Circuit rejected the rule associated with Giles and upheld blanket intake strip searches without individualized suspicion.

    Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders · Third Circuit · filed

    See, e.g., Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.1984); Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1273 (7th Cir. 1983). ... Like the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, we conclude that the security interest in preventing smuggling at the time of intake is as strong as the interest in preventing smuggling after the contact visits at issue in Bell. We reject Plaintiffs’ argument that blanket searches are unreasonable because jails have little interest in strip searching arrestees charged with non-indictable offenses.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Giles v. Ackerman and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace