Landlord arrested, strip-searched for not mowing Wichita rental property. Now he’s suing

A Texas man is suing Sedgwick County after he was arrested and strip-searched for not mowing the lawn at his rental property.

Samuel S. Pray, of Cypress, Texas, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court District of Kansas last month claiming the Sedgwick County Jail’s policy of strip searching anyone booked into jail, regardless of whether they will be in the general jail population, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches.

He is suing the Sedgwick County Commission, Sheriff Jeff Easter and two unnamed jail employees.

Pray is seeking $150,000 in actual damages for “the humilation, embarrassment and emotion distress he sustained from the illegal body cavity strip search” and $250,000 in punitive damages for the defendants’ “wanton conduct violating the Fourth Amendment.”

It started in October 2021 when Pray received a letter from the city of Wichita and a notice to appear in court because the grass at his rental property had reached a height above 12 inches.

“He had quickly responded to the prosecutor, explaining that he had been unable to evict the tenant that summer because of the Covid prohibition on evictions,” Pray’s lawyer, former U.S. Attorney for Kansas Randy Rathbun, wrote in the court filing.

An assistant city attorney told Pray in December 2021 that he no longer needed to appear in court.

“I’m sorry that it too(k) so long to get back to you, but I wanted to verify with the inspectors. The infraction has been cleaned up so the case will be dismissed, there is no need to appear in court,” the assistant attorney wrote to Pray, according to the lawsuit.

That was the last Pray heard about the grass issue until July 30, 2023, when he dropped off his sister at Wichita’s Eisenhower National Airport to catch an early morning flight.

“As the plaintiff drove from the departure area for unloading passengers, he was pulled over by the Airport police,” Rathbun’s filing says. “The officer greeted the plaintiff with a friendly tone and noted that although the physical decal showed his car tag had expired, the system showed it was current. The officer promised a short stop as he walked back to his car to check further on the computer.”

Ten minutes later, two officers approached Pray’s car and ordered him to exit the vehicle. They ordered him to turn around and handcuffed him.

“The officer asked if anyone could be using his name as he looked ‘pretty clean cut’ to have a warrant,” the filing says. “At that time, Pray assumed he was the victim of mistaken identity.”

After waiting at the scene for about 15 minutes, Pray and the officers learned that the warrant was a “$100 Environmental Warrant.”

“The two officers were as mystified as the plaintiff,” the lawsuit says. “As more details came in over dispatch, they informed Mr. Pray that there was grass over 12-inches high at a property titled to him.”

The airport police officers took Pray to the Airport Police Station to finish their report on the arrest.

“The arresting officer said that if it were his decision, he would cut the plaintiff loose — but that he couldn’t as he had already called it in,” the lawsuit says.

A different officer took Pray to the Sedgwick County Jail.

“As he entered the Facility’s intake, one of the first things that caught Pray’s attention was a rather large sign that said everyone going into intake would be subjected to a strip search, including civil and/or misdemeanor warrants,” the filing says. “The booking officer was indifferent — bordering on hostile — when the plaintiff informed him that he was apparently being arrested on an environmental warrant for grass in excess of 12 inches.”

Pray offered to pay his $100 bond with his credit card, but the booking officer at the jail told him the Sedgwick County Detention Center does not accept credit card payments. The booking officer, who was identified as John Doe No. 1 in the lawsuit, then confiscated Pray’s cell phone before he could call a friend to bring $100 to bail him out.

“The officer told him to spend Sunday in jail and talk to a judge Monday morning,” the lawsuit says, which to Pray “didn’t seem like good advice.”

“The booking officer pointed to a jail phone and told him to figure it out,” the lawsuit says. “Before Pray could figure anything out, however, the booking officer and the transporting officer took Pray to an adjoining room and told him to take off all his clothes.”

In the search area, Pray was ordered to grab his genitals and turn around. He was then ordered to bend over and cough several times while an intake officer watched him closely.

“The plaintiff was left to stand naked while the booking officer carefully searched his cargo shorts and tee shirt,” the filing says. “After what seemed like an eternity, he was finally allowed to put his clothes back on.”

After the strip search, Pray was allowed to call a friend.

“His friend got a huge laugh out of the big sign that said the Detention Facility took cash or credit cards as he posted the bond,” the filing says.

Rathbun argues in his filing that Sedgwick County is blatantly violating a 2012 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florence v. Burlington, which found jail strip searches do not require reasonable suspicion if the arrestee is being admitted into the general jail population. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, clarified that the decision applied only to those who would be in the general population, not those similar to Pray who were booked on suspicion of a minor violation and allowed to post bail without being admitted into the general population.

“Most of those arrested for minor offenses are not dangerous, and most are released from custody prior to or at the time of their initial appearance before a magistrate,” Alito wrote. “In some cases, the charges are dropped. In others, arrestees are released either on their own recognizance or on minimal bail. In the end, few are sentenced to incarceration. For these persons, admission to the general jail population, with the concomitant humiliation of a strip search, may not be reasonable, particularly if an alternative procedure is feasible.”

Rathbun argues in his filing that Sedgwick County had no plans to put Pray in the general jail population for the $100 environmental warrant.

“At no time did the jailer believe that the plaintiff was going to be placed into the general population at the jail,” he wrote. “The plaintiff sat the entire time on a plastic chair near the jailer as they waited for the bond money to arrive.”

Rathbun claims the county’s violations of Pray’s rights are built in to its policy of strip searching everyone who comes through intake.

“Most state actors do not advertise that they intentionally violate the civil rights of citizens here in this state,” Rathbun’s filing says. “Not so for the Sedgwick County Detention Facility, which proudly proclaimed that everyone coming in here gets strip searched regardless of why you are in here (Fourth Amendment notwithstanding).”

Sedgwick County spokesperson Nicole Gibbs declined to comment, saying the county does not comment on pending litigation.