US Supreme Court hears case on body searches

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case
on the constitutionality of body searches in prison
© AFP/File Robyn Beck

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case on the constitutionality of body searches in prison, particularly in connection with minor offenses.

Albert Florence, 36, was stopped on a New Jersey highway on an arrest warrant for a fine which in fact already had been paid.

Still, he was arrested and taken to prison where he was forced to strip, open his mouth, lift up his genitals and shower in front of guards. He was held for six days before being brought before a judge.

Then he was taken to another prison and underwent another search.

Florence, a finance chief at a car dealership, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court saying his constitutional rights to privacy had been violated during the searches. He maintains authorities at the prisons should have had at least a reasonable doubt about whether he posed any risk to society.

“This is a significant intrusion of individual privacy and individual dignity,” his attorney Thomas Goldstein said. “When somebody is pulled over like Mr Florence, it’s laugh-out-loud funny to think he is smuggling something into this jail.”

The nine justices must decide if it was reasonable for authorities to suspect that Florence might have had a weapon or drugs hidden in his person at the time he was arrested for a minor offense.

Prison officials argue such searches need to be routine.

“The individuals who are doing the searches at issue have very limited information about people,” Nicole Saharsky argued on behalf of the government.

“They have large numbers of people to get through into the general prison population. They have very little time, and if they guess wrong, those mistakes can be deadly.”

Carter Phillips, representing the two prisons, allowed that 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.”

The court is expected to rule by June 2012.