Via ScotusBlog, a New Jersey defendant is petitioning the court to hear his Fourth Amendment claim that he shouldn't have been strip-searched after his arrest on an outstanding warrant for a failure to pay a fine. Albert Florence argued that he actually had paid the fine, and the charges against him were later dismissed. But in the meantime, Florence was subjected to strip- and body-cavity searches before being admitted to the general population of the correction facility in which he was held.
It used to be that officers could only perform those types of invasive searches when they had a reasonable suspicion that there were weapons or contraband that could only be found by removing outer garments. But, apparently, a number of circuit courts have ruled that corrections facilities can have such blanket policies, allowing even very minor offenders to be strip-searched. The decision split the Third Circuit, and the dissenter argued that no one ever showed Florence presented a particular danger.
I don't know much about how and why the Supreme Court decides to pick up cases. But this seems like an interesting one. It's cases like this that erode faith in the judicial system for people who come into contact with it. It's one thing to be able to trust that if you're wrongly accused you can prevail through reason -- which is a tough enough concept in which to have faith. It's another thing entirely when you know that justice only comes after days of incarceration and after humiliating searches.
