The Supreme Court granted police greater power to search arrested individuals in a ruling last Monday. Anyone arrested who is taken to jail now may be subject to a full strip search.

The ruling gives police far too much freedom to degrade and dehumanize arrested individuals.

The case was the result of a New Jersey man who had been riding in the passenger seat of his wife’s car in 2005. When his wife’s car was pulled over, Albert Florence was arrested on a warrant for unpaid fines. He was subject to two strip searches during his eight-day custody, according to The New York Times. He was later released after police realized the fines had already been paid. Florence took his case all the way to the Supreme Court.

In 2011, Florence told the Times he considers himself to be ‘a man’s man. 6-3. Big guy.’ He went on to say, ‘It was humiliating. It made me feel less than a man. It made me feel not better than an animal.’ He recalls being asked by jail officials to ‘Squat and cough,’ and then ‘Spread your cheeks.’

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision, wrote the ruling ‘struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions.’ He argued that ‘people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.’

But it is not clear what Kennedy would deem to be an unreasonable balance between privacy and security. Would having prisoners permanently without clothing be unreasonable? The answer is unclear.

The strip search is the ultimate removal of privacy. Kennedy’s argument that the most devious and dangerous criminals are minor offenders is not reason enough to make all individuals be subject to strip searches.

Moreover, Kennedy’s argument is not backed up by data. Though he pointed to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh as a perfect example, the anecdotal evidence is not enough. McVeigh was arrested long before bombing a federal building for a minor charge. Kennedy seems to falsely believe McVeigh could have been deterred had he only been strip searched.

At an Orange County correctional facility between 1999 and 2003, contraband was found through a strip search in only five instances, according to Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion. Of the 23,000 inmates, only one was found to have contraband in a strip search that was performed without reasonable suspicion.

The American Bar Association pointed out the United States subscribes to conventions and treaties that forbid prisoners being treated in ways that could be considered ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading.’ This ruling would potentially break these treaties.

In a brief prepared for the case, the association argued that ‘courts have long recognized that strip searches cause severe and pervasive psychological injury, even absent the coercion and intrusiveness present in this case.’

Supporters of this ruling assume police will only use this new power in reasonable instances. But in the dissent, Breyer wrote those who do not drive with a license, who do not pay child support or who violate leash laws for pets could all be instances where a strip search would now be allowed. For him, the capability for police to abuse this power is limitless.

Strip searches are only necessary when an individual is suspected of carrying contraband. Unpaid fines and other minor offenses are not grounds enough to degrade the arrested. Even arrested individuals are granted fundamental human rights to dignity and privacy.

This ruling violates these basic rights.

Harmen Rockler is a junior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears every Monday. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.   

Published on April 8, 2012 at 12:00 pm