Supreme Court mulls danger, dignity in strip-search case
WASHINGTON -- As the Supreme Court considered Wednesday whether people arrested for traffic or other minor offenses can be strip-searched during jail processing, Justice Anthony Kennedy homed in on the competing interests. He referred to the importance of protecting "the individual dignity of the detainee" yet stressed the danger of a county jail, where arrestees are screened, then placed in cells with other prisoners.
"You don't know who these people are," said Kennedy, often a swing vote in difficult cases. "You arrest them for traffic, and they may be some serial killer. You don't know."
Though Wednesday's case involved a New Jersey man who was arrested in error, the justices looked far beyond the facts of his ordeal to scenarios involving dangerous arrestees and the smuggling into jails of weapons, drugs and other contraband.
The dispute began in March 2005 when Albert Florence was picked up on a warrant for an outstanding fine and brought to New Jersey county jails where he was strip-searched as part of routine processing. Florence had paid off the fine, but the warrant had not been removed from a state computer.
At the first jail in Burlington County, N.J., Florence was ordered to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around and lift his genitals. At the second jail, in Essex County, he was also ordered to squat and cough as authorities looked for contraband.
After the warrant mistake was discovered and he was freed, Florence, 36, finance director at a car dealership, sued, claiming his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches was violated. A federal district court judge sided with Florence, but an appeals court reversed, saying routine strip-searches during intake are justified based on authorities' concerns that weapons and other contraband might be smuggled into the general prison population.
Representing Florence in his appeal, lawyer Thomas Goldstein argued that jails should be able to strip arrestees only if authorities have reason to suspect they may be concealing something. Goldstein said jailers lacking sufficient grounds should not be able to get up close to a person and look at their private parts.
What Florence experienced, Goldstein said, was "a significant intrusion on individual privacy and individual dignity."
Lawyer Carter Phillips, on behalf of the New Jersey counties, countered that an arrestee lacks the usual Fourth Amendment rights. Phillips urged the justices to rely on a 1979 case, Bell v. Wolfish, in which the justices upheld strip-searches for prisoners after visits with outsiders.
"Anybody who thinks that the problems of contraband are less serious today than they were (at the time of that case) is ignoring reality," Phillips said, urging the court to defer to the judgment of corrections officials.
The U.S. Justice Department sides with the New Jersey counties. Assistant Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky echoed Phillips' view that corrections officials should be able to set search policies for their jails.
"You cannot say that there are some minor offenders that don't pose a contraband risk," Saharsky said, adding of the guards who screen arrestees, "You have individuals who are making (a) very quick determination. They have very little time, and if they guess wrong, those mistakes can be deadly."
