Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are against government intrusion unless it includes a body cavity

10 States don’t do it.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons don't do it.

The U.S. Marshalls don’t do it.

What is it?  It’s what should  happen to Supreme Court Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas if they are ever arrested for walking their dog without a leash,  riding their bikes without a bell or with an inoperable car headlight.  The answer is - a good healthy visual body cavity search or what’s commonly known as a strip search.

Here’s what happened – In 2005  Albert Florence, his wife and little boy were pulled over by a state trooper. Mrs. Florence was at the wheel, but the trooper's roadside state records check showed a seven-year-old outstanding arrest warrant for Albert Florence for failing to pay a fine. Florence said he had paid the fine, and pulled out a receipt, which he kept in the car. But the trooper said there was nothing he could do. Florence was handcuffed and taken to the local county jail. 

What follows is what happened to Albert Florence and thanks to the Supreme Court ruling will happened to any of us lawbreakers should we be caught with our unleashed dogs.

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.  –

(excepted from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf)

The state would later admit it had failed to properly purge the arrest warrant. He was held in jail for seven days and strip-searched twice.

As a result Florence sued contending that automatically strip-searching a person who is arrested for a minor offense violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.  The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.  The court ruled 5-4 in the case of ‘FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERSOF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL” that what was not even close to a universal practice has now been given constitutional protection. Strip searches for minor offenses.

Now keep in mind that detainees already have to pass through metal detectors machines before entering.  It's not all that far fetched to end up in jail when you are arrested for a having your headlight out (and that not a euphemism for anything).  If you get picked up at night or on a weekend when judges may not be available off you go.

What was the Supreme Court majorities rational you ask? - Justice Kennedy responded that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh 1995 Oklahoma City bomber, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.  – Now we all know that McVeigh hid 350 pounds of Tovex Blastrite Gel "sausages", nine ammonium nitrate and nitromethane filled drums and the four drums containing a mixture of the fertilizer and about 4-U.S.-gallon (3.3 imp gal; 15 L) of diesel fuel up his ass which would have been detected during the strip search.  And they would have discovered the  Boeing 757–222 embedded in the colon of one of the 9/11 hijackers.  Or maybe they just wanted to humiliate them before they released them after holding them for their minor offenses so they could then go about doing really bad things.



I find it interesting that conservatives rail against activist judges but I don't think there is anything more activist than giving access for viewing my duodenum without probable cause. And if your curious about "probable cause" lead author of the dissent, Justice Breyer wrote
"The New York Federal District Court, to which I have referred, conducted a study of 23,000 persons admitted to the Orange County correctional facility between 1999 and 2003.These 23,000 persons underwent a strip search of the kind described. Of these 23,000 persons, the court wrote, “the County encountered three incidents of drugs recovered from an inmate’s anal cavity and two incidents of drugs falling from an inmate’s underwear during the course of a strip search.” The court added that in four of these five instances there may have been “reasonable suspicion” to search, leaving only one instance in 23,000 in which the strip search policy “arguably” detected additional contraband."

Strip searches are intrusive and humiliating.

Prior to this ruling a number of lower federal courts had decided that they could not be done routinely to prisoners who presented no risk of violence, contagion or drug possession.
If a college kid is arrested for drunken and disorderly behavior on a Saturday night and taken to jail, that student may be strip searched by jail personnel. Or if a woman is taken into custody because of an outstanding warrant for failure to pay parking fines, that woman can be strip searched by jail personnel.
I would hate to be a good looking drunken female student arrested on a Friday night for walking her unleashed dog .

I don’t know about you but I am going to go check my car headlights.