Supreme Court considers strip searches in jails
Albert Florence, right, sits at his home Bordentown, N.J., Oct. 11, 2011, with his attorney Susan Chana Lask. The Supreme Court is hearing Oct. 12, 2011, Florence's claim that strip searches in two county jails violated his constitutional rights, in an important test of the privacy rights of people who have been arrested. / AP Photo/Mel Evans
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court seemed ready Wednesday to endorse a jail policy that forces even people arrested on minor charges to undress and shower while being watched by guards.
Less clear was whether justices would decide jailers need a reason to suspect someone may be hiding a weapon or drugs before undertaking a more invasive strip search. The court heard arguments in a case weighing the privacy rights of people in jail against authorities' need to maintain safety.
It's the case of Albert Florence, the finance manager for a New Jersey car dealership, who was arrested on a warrant for an unpaid fine. Florence says he was twice required by jail guards, who stood close by, to undress, open his mouth and lift his genitals. On the second occasion, he also had to bend over and cough, in case he was hiding something inside his body.
Jail officials and the Obama administration back a policy that allows close searches of anyone entering the general jail population.
"What I would really like is an opinion that recognizes that deference to the prison and to their judgment is what's appropriate under these circumstances," Carter Phillips, the jails' lawyer, told the court.
But Thomas Goldstein, representing Florence, said the court should draw a line that limits intrusion into someone's privacy when there is no cause to suspect he is hiding anything.
Florence was arrested after a state trooper pulled over the family's BMW sport utility vehicle as they were headed to dinner with his mother-in-law in 2005. His wife, April, was seven months pregnant at the time and driving. Their 4-year-old son was in the back seat.
"When somebody is pulled over like Mr. Florence, it's laugh-out-loud funny to think he is smuggling something into this jail," Goldstein said. In addition to the searches, Florence is challenging his arrest because he already had paid the fine — and carried a document to prove it — and challenging his detention in two jails for a week without a hearing. Those matters are on hold pending the outcome of his high court case.
As happens often, the justices appeared more concerned with the wider implications of any decision they might reach than with the specifics of the case before them.
The justices focused a lot of questions on how close guards can get to naked inmates and how thorough searches can be. "He says 2 feet is too close, 5 feet or whatever is OK," Chief Justice John Roberts asked Phillips. "You want to go to 2 feet. You don't want to have to stand back to 6 feet. That's all the case comes down to?"
Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether the distinction between major and minor crimes makes sense. He pointed to San Francisco's experience showing that many people arrested for minor crimes are "high on drugs" when they are brought in, and perhaps should be subjected to closer searches.
Goldstein acknowledged that it wouldn't take much to allow "the very close inspection of the individual's genitals, which can occur absolutely so long as there is some minimal level of suspicion that's created."
Several justices said that it might be safer, even for people like Florence, to give jails permission to search everyone thoroughly.
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked whether someone in that situation "might well prefer an institution where everyone has been searched before he or she is put into the population."
Yet there also were many questions about the rationale for the searches — deterring smuggling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said recent studies show that most contraband that gets into jails and prisons is not arriving with the inmates themselves, "but coming in through guards, coming in through contact visits."
The court ruled more than 30 years ago that prison inmates could be strip-searched following visits.
Phillips asked the court to apply the same rule to people who are entering the general jail population, although he conceded one point under questioning.
"I think what is disturbing about this case is in fact that he was arrested under circumstances in which he candidly shouldn't have been arrested as a matter of state law," he said.
A decision should come by spring.
The case is Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 10-945.
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
Photos: Underground shots of NYC's Second Ave. subway project New York City's Second Ave. subway was first conceived almost a century ago and when it is completed, it will extend all the way down the eastern side of Manhattan with 16 new stations. CBS News' Don Dahler reports on one of the most challenging public works projects in the country.
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- Google asks FISA court to lift gag order on NSA requests
- Girl who lost feet in lawnmower gets prosthetics
- Tornado briefly touches down on Denver airport runways
- FAA approval sought for 650-foot-tall Vegas thrill ride
- Report: U.S. teacher training an "industry of mediocrity"
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- Report: Pregnant workers face routine discrimination
There IS a line: DON'T GO TO JAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
The State is responsible for all the gaurds and inmates in the jail, their safety is first and foremost while they are inside the walls of the jail. You cannot discriminate against one person vs another nor can you racially profile anyone. EVERYONE that is arrested that enters jail is presumed innocent until proven guilty per the laws of the United States. You cannot have different rules for different people, THAT IS DISCRIMINATION, so that means you must treat everyone the same. The only way to have safety in the jails is to search each inmate at the time of them getting to jail. If someone gets into jail and harms themself or others then it is the fault of the jail for allowing something to happen.
The only way to keep EVERYONE safe while in jail is to search the inmates, because people love to hide things on their bodies or inside of their bodies it is nessasary to strip search! OR we could implement the Airport body scanners in every jail and prison and make them walk through that to make sure nothing is entering the jail! That would cost a heck of a lot of money and the Taxpayers will be responsible for that cost.
Now regarding why he was taken to jail, I am not sure sending someone to jail for a unpaid ticket is the best use of taxpayers money. Impounding their car until the ticket/fine is paid might be a better way of doing things, the cost of the ticket/fine, tow and cost for storage might make people think a little harder about not paying their ticket/fine. In this situation the man states he paid that fine, if so then the city would have to pay the tow and storage if they took his vehicle when in fact he actually paid the fine.
People need to obey the laws but prison and jail is for actual criminals not someone that didn't pay a parking ticket or a speeding ticket. The cost to put them in jail is much higher than that ticket was in the first place! Since the reason for the fine isn't listed we can only assume it was for something non criminal!
Florence is going to be cleared of any perceived wrong-doing, then turn around, sue and win for wrongful detention and false imprisonment. Doesn't take the Supreme Court to figure that one out.