Both the plaintiffs and defendants in a federal class-action lawsuit against the Yamhill County Juvenile Detention Facility have asked the judge to rule in their favor, without requiring a trial.

Last June, a group of former inmates joined with parents of former inmates who are not yet 18 to file a class-action suit against the county alleging that facility has an unconstitutional policy of strip-searching juvenile inmates, even when there is no reason to suspect them of hiding contraband.

They named as defendants Chuck Vesper, head of the juvenile facility, and Tim Loewen, director of the county's juvenile department.

They are seeking $2 million in punitive damages, along with unspecified compensatory damages, to be determined by the court. They also want the detention center banned from conducting strip searches, except in cases where guards have a clear reason to suspect an inmate is concealing contraband. Trial is scheduled for October 2010.

In November, the county sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that some of the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, that Loewen and Vesper are entitled to qualified immunity and that the state has sovereign immunity from the claims.

Now the county is trying another argument: That the searches are justified and constitutional. It is also retaining the qualified immunity defense.

The county does have a policy of strip-searching all juveniles placed at the detention facility, it acknowleged in court documents, and does so for four reasons: To keep weapons and contraband out of the facility; to "discover any abuse or self-harm the juvenile may have suffered, to remove any items of clothing that might be used to inflict self-injury and to discover any medical conditions which may otherwise be undetectable."

The searches are justified and constitutional, the county argued, because "the criteria used to admit juveniles into YCJDC is the same basis which has been determined to be a justified basis for the strip search of an adult detainee."

It is not uncommon for guards to discover marks of abuse or illness during strip searches, the county said in its filing - and in fact, it did so in searching three of the plaintiffs. In one case, the county says, the discovery changed how the juvenile was handled; it does not state that any action was taken in the other two cases.

The plaintiffs in the case are also seeking summary judgement, in their favor, based on the county's admission of a policy to strip-search all juveniles admitted to the detention facility.

They reject the county's justification for the searches, stating that "there is no evidence in this record to demonstrate that JDC staff must conduct a strip search to detect abuse or neglect, rather than conducting a search or examination far less invasive than a strip search. ... Defendants do not address the harm inflicted on juveniles by a strip search, much less the harm that a strip search would cause an abused or neglected child."

The plaintiffs also argue that the county "should not be allowed to perpetuate a policy where nonmedically trained corrections officials are entrusted with detecting medical evidence of abuse, neglect or disease in juveniles."