PORTLAND – A federal judge Thursday approved class-action status for a lawsuit filed last year by a Thomaston woman against Knox County and its sheriff over the jail’s strip-search procedures.

Laurie Tardiff’s suit is the third of its kind filed in Maine’s U.S. District Court in the last two years over strip-searches at county jails.

U.S. District Court Judge Gene Carter on Thursday granted Tardiff’s motion seeking class-action status 10 weeks after a magistrate judge recommended class-action status for a similar case against York County.

On Tuesday, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the appeal of a strip-search case against Hancock County.

Tardiff, 36, was arrested Feb. 7, 2001, in Rockland on a felony charge of tampering with a witness. She also was charged with violating conditions of release, a misdemeanor. Both charges were dismissed in September 2002, according to a court clerk.

Before leaving her home the night she was arrested, Tardiff was required to empty her pockets in front of the arresting officer. After the intake procedure at the jail was complete, Tardiff was taken to a shower area and a female corrections officer ordered her to disrobe, according to court documents.

Once naked, she was told to squat and cough, exposing herself to the corrections officer, according to court documents. Tardiff was required to repeat the squat-and-cough procedure three times.

Carter ruled Thursday that the class Tardiff could represent in the lawsuit would be all people who, after Nov. 19, 1996, were subjected to a strip-search and-or visual body cavity search at the Knox county Jail who:

. Had not been arrested on charges that involved a weapon, drugs or a violent felony.

. Were waiting for bail to be set.

. Were waiting for an initial court appearance.

. Were arrested on a warrant.

Tardiff’s attorney Dale Thistle of Newport said that under that definition, more than 5,000 people were potential plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“Under the Fourth Amendment, the strip-search of a person taken into custody can be performed only if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is carrying contraband or there is evidence of a crime or weapons,” Thistle said Thursday. “If an officer can’t spell out what that reasonable suspicion is or has none, a strip-search is constitutionally wrong and impermissible – period.”

Thistle said that Knox County jail officials were not abiding by jail policy and also were not following requirements set down by the Maine Attorney General’s Office when Tardiff was subjected to strip-searches. The attorney said that other county jails have a shower stall with an opaque door that allows arrestees to disrobe with a guarantee of some privacy and exchange their own clothing for jail clothing without a visual body cavity search.

Peter Marchesi, the Waterville attorney who represents Knox, York and Hancock counties in the three separate cases, said Thursday that he was disappointed with Carter’s ruling. He has filed an objection to the class action status recommended in the York County case. It is scheduled to be heard in Portland later this month.

Marchesi said that he would await the outcome of that case before deciding whether to ask the appeals court to consider reversing the class-action status of both cases. He argued unsuccessfully that circumstances surrounding arrests and the effects of strip-searches on arrestees were too individual and unique to qualify for the lawsuits against Knox and York counties for class-action status.

Thistle said that people who feel they meet the requirements approved by the judge should call his Newport office.