By Robert Barnes, Washington Post, updated Monday, April 2, 12:38 p.m.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that those arrested for even minor violations may be strip-searched before being admitted to jail, saying safety concerns outweigh personal privacy rights.
The court’s conservatives ruled against a New Jersey man who was strip-searched after being mistakenly arrested on an outstanding warrant.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 ruling, saying that correctional officials have good reason to “to perform thorough searches at intake for disease, gang affiliation, and contraband.”
“There is a substantial interest in preventing any new inmate, either of his own will or as a result of coercion, from putting all who live or work at these institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted to the general population,” Kennedy wrote.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with the outcome but wrote separately to emphasize that the decision concerned only those admitted to the general population of a correctional facility. An exception to the rule might apply to those detained on minor charges and kept apart from the rest of the jail population, they said.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by the rest of the court’s liberals. They said corrections officials must have reasonable suspicion that the person arrested poses a danger before subjecting them to a strip search that is “inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading.”
“And the harm to privacy interests would seem particularly acute where the person searched may well have no expectation of being subject to such a search, say, because she had simply received a traffic ticket for failing to buckle a seatbelt, because he had not previously paid a civil fine, or because she had been arrested for a minor trespass,” Breyer wrote.
The case was brought by Albert Florence, a New Jersey man who said he was subjected to two invasive inspections in 2005 after being mistakenly arrested for not paying a fine.
A state trooper pulled over Florence’s BMW in 2005 as he and his family were on the way to his mother-in-law’s to celebrate the purchase of their new home. He was handcuffed and arrested in front of his distraught, pregnant wife and young son.
He spent seven days in jail because of a warrant that said, mistakenly, he was wanted for not paying a court fine. In fact, he had proof that the fine had been paid years earlier; he said he carried it in his glove box because he believed that police were suspicious of black men who drove nice cars.
Florence was jailed in Burlington County and then Essex County, before a magistrate ordered him released. At Burlington, he said he was forced to disrobe in front of an officer and told to lift his genitals. At Essex, he was strip-searched again, and said he was made to squat and cough in front of others, a maneuver meant to expel anything hidden in a body cavity.
In 1979, the Supreme Court said that prisons could conduct body cavity searches of inmates after visits with outsiders, on the theory that those from the outside world might attempt to bring contraband to the prisoner.
But for decades afterward, courts held that there were constitutional issues involved when someone was being arrested and detained. Starting in 2008, though, appeals courts have given correctional officials more leeway in conducting invasive searches, even for minor offenses.
Kennedy’s opinion said there was justification for such a policy. Corrections officials “must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face,” he wrote.
He said jailers must be effective in ensuring that weapons are not brought into jails. They have an interest in examining detainees for wounds, signs of disease or gang tattoos. They have a need to stop the smuggling of drugs. Corrections officials do not have to have a reason to believe an individual detainee might pose a risk if he or she is being admitted into the general population, Kennedy said.
“The record provides evidence that the seriousness of an offense is a poor predictor of who has contraband and that it would be difficult in practice to determine whether individual detainees fall within the proposed exemption,” Kennedy wrote.
Kennedy said the case did not require a ruling on those who would not have substantial contact with other detainees. Justice Clarence Thomas did not join that part of the decision.
Breyer was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The case is Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington.