|
|
| Supreme Court has trouble balancing strip-searches with privacy rights |
| By washingtonpost.com - Robert Barnes |
| Published: 10/13/2011 |
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday had trouble drawing a boundary for how intimately corrections officials may search those entering jail without violating constitutional rights of privacy. After an hour of often graphic arguments about strip-searches and body-cavity inspections, the justices seemed to accept that even those picked up for minor violations could be required to strip and shower under the watchful eyes of jailers. But the tougher question was whether officials eager to keep weapons and other contraband out of jails could more closely inspect private body parts without some reasonable suspicion to justify the search. Such a “significant intrusion on individual privacy and individual dignity” requires some reason to believe the arrested person poses a danger, said Washington lawyer Thomas C. Goldstein. He represents Albert Florence, a New Jersey man who said he was subjected to two invasive inspections after being mistakenly arrested for not paying a fine. But Goldstein’s counterpart, Carter Phillips, said jails were within their rights to have a blanket policy of searching everyone admitted to the general population in their facilities. “I think the basic principle we are asking for is that deference to the jails and to the administrators of the jails requires that this court respect their judgment,” Phillips said. Neither position seemed to completely satisfy the justices. Even Phillips acknowledged that Florence’s story is “disturbing” because he “candidly shouldn’t have been arrested.” A New Jersey state trooper pulled over Florence’s BMW in 2005 as he and his family were on the way to his mother-in-law’s to celebrate their new home. He was handcuffed and arrested in front of his distraught, pregnant wife and young son. He spent seven days in jail because of a warrant that said, mistakenly, he was wanted for not paying a court fine. In fact, he had proof that the fine had been paid years earlier; he said he carried it in his glovebox because he believed that police were suspicious of black men who drove nice cars. Read More. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think