* OFFENSE: Civil Case Under 42 USC 1983
* CASE No. 10-0945
* DATE OF OPINION: April 2, 2012
* OPINION: Kennedy, J.
* DISPOSITION: Third Circuit Reversed J.

Ed. Note: (Background Facts)Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner's arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting.

G&S 31.09 Search & Seizure / Penal Institutions (Strip Searches): Petitioner filed a civil action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that "strip-searching" nonindictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed.

Holding:Maintaining safety and order at correctional institutions requires the expertise of correctional officials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face -- so officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails -- even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Chief Justice Roberts concurred (P. 24 of the PDF file), arguing that the Court "makes a persuasive case for the general applicability of the rule it announces . . .," but is wise to "leave open the possibility of exceptions," to ensure that we "not embarrass the future." Justice Alito concurred (P. 25 of the PDF file), writing separately "to emphasize the limits of today's holding." He notes that the Court holds "that jail administrators may require all arrestees who are committed to the general population of a jail to undergo visual strip searches not involving physical contact by corrections officers." He also pointed out that the "Court does not address whether it is always reasonable, without regard to the offense or the reason for detention, to strip search an arrestee before the arrestee's detention has been reviewed by a judicial officer. The lead opinion explicitly reserves judgment on that question." Justice Breyer dissented (P. 28 of the PDF file) and was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. He "cannot find justification for the strip search policy at issue here -- a policy that would subject those arrested for minor offenses to serious invasions of their personal privacy.

Sidebars: N/A