Supreme Court Approves Strip Searches, Even For Minor Offenses

The Supreme Court of the United States recently held, in a 5-4 decision, that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, no matter how minor, before admitting them to jails – even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, Petitioner Albert W. Florence was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper. The trooper checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. Petitioner was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid.

At the Burlington County jail, Florence, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. He also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, Florence again had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband. He was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting.

Florence filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” nonindictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Third Circuit, holding that deference had to be given to jail officials unless substantial evidence showed their response to the situation was exaggerated. The Court felt that concerns about gang members provided a reasonable basis to justify a visual inspection for signs of gang affiliation during intake. The Court also highlighted the importance of detecting contraband concealed by new detainees. Ultimately, the Court found that the search procedures to which Florence was subjected struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the jail’s needs.

If you have been charged with a crime and believe your rights may have been violated, please contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff for a confidential consultation: 215-563-9800 or via email at marc@nefflawoffices.com.