SCOTUS: Jail strip searches constitutional

---

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

---

---

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the strip-searches the majority allowed were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when there was good reason to do so.
...
Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.

---

---

Justice Kennedy responded that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.

---

---

The case decided Monday, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945, arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence’s arrest based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)

Mr. Florence was held for a week in jails in Burlington and Essex Counties, and he was strip-searched in each. There is some dispute about the details, but general agreement that he was made to stand naked in front of a guard who required him to move intimate parts of his body. The guards did not touch him.

---

---

The majority and dissenting opinions drew differing conclusions from the available information about the amount of contraband introduced into jails and how much strip-searches add to pat-downs and metal detectors.

---

---

On April 03 2012 09:59 BlackJack wrote:
How about "SCOTUS: Jail strip searches constitutional" for a title

---

---

On April 03 2012 10:07 UmiNotsuki wrote:
This is rather horrifying. It really terrifies me what a few corrupt or simply bad cops might do in the way of sexually harrassing and/or abusing prisoners in the name of a strip search. It's not hard to imagine that a cop might pull over some attractive lady and, because he needs no permission to do so, force her to strip in front of him.

Chilling. Hope it's revisited and overturned, though I know it's unlikely.

---

---

"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. "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."

---

---

On April 03 2012 10:12 BlackJack wrote:
It seems the article is a little misleading in that it says strip searches are okay for any offense, no matter how minor, for those that are entered into the general population. Well if their offense is really that minor then maybe they won't be entered into the general population at all, meaning a strip search won't be necessary.

Here's what Justice Alito wrote


edit: wrong about which justice wrote that

---

---

On April 03 2012 10:10 tree.hugger wrote:
So the 4th Amdenment says:
+ Show Spoiler +

and it seems to me that simply the act of being arrested (for a broken taillight, for biking without a proper bell, to use Justice Breyer's examples) isn't enough probable cause to justify the 'violation' of 'the right of people to be secure in their persons'.

Moreover, considering the individual liberty argument the court seems to be following in the ACA oral arguments, I'm really confused as to how the state could have the ability to order people to strip naked and undergo a close visual examination, yet not have the ability to force people to pay a extremely small fine for not having health insurance.

So this is a little weird.

It also seems to ignore the extreme history of racial bias and unfair treatment based on race in the US correctional system. The petitioner; Mr. Florence, was black, and was mistakenly arrested and held for six days on the charge of not paying a fine he had clearly paid. This SCOTUS ruling seems like it could allow a lot of what would normally be seen as harassment.

---

---

I agree that the article is a little misleading - but my current understanding is that the Justices ruled that the 4th amendment does not cover strip searches. That seems to be just a little overarching to me...

---

---

Justice Kennedy responded that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.

---