In the Florence case, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, sitting in Philadelphia, ruled that strip searches can be performed on inmates regardless of the crime and circumstances.
Other federal courts, however, have wisely said strip searches should take place only when jail officials have "reasonable suspicion" that an inmate charged with a serious crime may be hiding contraband.
Florence, 36, of Bordentown, should have hardly raised suspicion in the mind of a reasonable person. He was a passenger in a sports-utility vehicle being driven by his wife in March 2005 when a New Jersey state trooper pulled them over along Route 295 in southern Burlington County.
Florence and his wife, April, believe they were targeted because they are African American, which is understandable in a state whose troopers have a sordid history of racial profiling.
The trooper looked up Florence on a computer and found a warrant for an unpaid traffic fine. But not only had Florence paid the fine two years prior to this incident; he produced a document backing up his story.
Paid or unpaid, a traffic fine is not a serious offense. But Burlington County guards strip-searched Florence, and after he was transported to the Essex County jail, he was treated like a serial killer with blood on his hands. Guards made him strip, squat, cough, and move his genitals. Florence spent six days in jail before officials realized the clerical error.
Hearing the case earlier this month, Justice Stephen Breyer summed up exactly what is wrong with strip searches involving minor offenses, saying: "I can't find the justification." He added that his law clerk told him that contraband was found in only one of 64,000 strip searches of nonviolent offenders.
The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to outlaw the cruel, demeaning practice of strip-searching nonviolent offenders.
