Supreme Court Rules that Those Arrested for Minor Offenses may be Subjected to a Strip Search as Part of Jail Intake Procedure
As the following recent Supreme Court decision illustrates, when you are arrested, you must check your pride, as well as your freedom, at the jailhouse door. You do not, however, have to forfeit your rights under the Constitution. If you have concerns about the way you or a loved one was treated after an arrest, you should discuss those concerns with an experienced Boston criminal defense lawyer.
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington [Case No. 10-945, April 2, 2012]
Albert Florence was a passenger in a car that was pulled over for speeding. Florence had a bench warrant in the police system because several years earlier he had failed to appear for a court hearing to enforce the payment of a fine. (The fine, in fact, had been paid at the time of the traffic stop, but the warrant, inexplicably, had never been removed from the system.) Florence was arrested and taken to jail, where he was subjected to a thorough strip search, which included an inspection of his body cavities and a mandatory shower with a delousing agent. Six days later, Florence was transferred to another jail facility, where he was again subjected to a strip search as part of the jail intake process.
Florence filed a petition in Federal Court, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments. He argued that persons arrested for a minor offense should not be subjected to a strip search as part of the routine jail intake procedure; rather, that type of intrusive search should only be allowed if jail officials have a reasonable suspicion that the inmate is concealing dangerous weapons, drugs or other contraband.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court emphasized the need to screen inmates before they become part of the jailhouse population. In addition to uncovering weapons, drugs or other contraband, jail officials need to look for evidence of lice and other contagious diseases; wounds or injuries requiring medical attention; scars; and signs of gang affiliation. Asking jail officials to make exceptions to this search procedure would be (1) unworkable – jail officials often know little about an arrestee at the time of the initial search; (2) unreliable – the reasons for a current arrest are not indicative of that person’s criminal past and have no bearing on whether that person might be concealing contraband; and (3) would present an unnecessary risk to the entire jail population. Thus, the Court concluded that the search procedures at issue struck a reasonable balance between inmates’ privacy interests and the jails’ interests in maintaining order and protecting the safety of all inmates, as well as jail personnel.
Contact a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer
If you or a loved one has been arrested, an experienced Boston criminal attorney can help to protect your constitutional rights. Contact us by phone at 617-492-0055 or by using our online contact form to schedule a free in-office consultation with Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney.
- Secretary Betsy DeVos: Slowly Remaking Title IX Investigations - August 2, 2018
- The Shooting of Kathryn Steinle - January 2, 2018
- Massachusetts House Passes Major Criminal Justice Bill - December 7, 2017
