{"id":3809,"date":"2011-10-16T15:51:20","date_gmt":"2011-10-16T19:51:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=3809"},"modified":"2016-11-16T20:36:37","modified_gmt":"2016-11-17T01:36:37","slug":"update-scotus-hears-oral-arguments-in-strip-search-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/update-scotus-hears-oral-arguments-in-strip-search-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Update: SCOTUS hears oral arguments in strip search case"},"content":{"rendered":"

At the conclusion of oral arguments on Wednesday, pundits were left guessing whether the Supreme Court would declare that Americans\u2019 constitutional right to privacy bars prison officials from strip searching them if and when they are jailed for minor, nonviolent offenses.\u00a0 The case, Florence v. Bd. of Freeholders<\/a><\/em>, explores both the breadth and depth of an individual\u2019s Fourth Amendment privacy right and is widely considered<\/a> to be one of the most important cases the Court will hear this term.<\/p>\n

At oral arguments, Thomas Goldstein, a lawyer for the petitioner, struggled to articulate precisely the procedure he was asserting to be unconstitutional.\u00a0 To some justices\u2019 surprise, Goldstein conceded that if prison guards observed inmates disrobe from across the room, their actions would not violate the Constitution.\u00a0 Rather, the constitutionality of a search hinged on the proximity between the guard and the inmate during a nude inspection.\u00a0 \u201cAre you suggesting,\u201d Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected, \u201c[i]t\u2019s okay to stand five feet away, but not two?\u201d\u00a0 Goldstein would not answer \u201chow close is too close\u201d; however, he affirmed that the constitutional violation in the case arose from the guards\u2019 close proximity to the petitioner while searching him.<\/p>\n

Several of the justices seemed surprised by other concessions Goldstein made during oral arguments.\u00a0 For instance, Goldstein suggested that a policy whereby close-range strip searches were performed by medical professionals would be constitutional.\u00a0 \u201cIf you\u2019re examined close up by someone who has a medical degree, it\u2019s okay?\u201d Justice Antonin Scalia questioned.\u00a0 \u201cAnd on the other hand, if it\u2019s someone who does not have a medical degree, it\u2019s not okay?\u201d\u00a0 Goldstein answered affirmatively.\u00a0 Justice Scalia stated that he failed to see Goldstein\u2019s distinction.<\/p>\n

Carter Phillips, counsel for the prisons, also received some pointed questions from the bench.\u00a0 A number of justices expressed their skepticism that the prisons had an interest in subjecting all<\/em> inmates \u2013 even those charged with only minor offenses \u2013 to close-range strip searches.\u00a0 Justice Stephen Breyer referred Phillips to studies showing no increase in contraband discovered when prison officials moved from a policy whereby guards strip searched all inmates upon entering the facility to one in which guards were required to have \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d before a search.\u00a0 \u201cI understand contraband is serious,\u201d Justice Sotomayor explained.\u00a0 \u201cBut most of the studies point to it not being on intake, but coming in through guards, coming in through contact visits.\u00a0 The great cause today is that from corrupt correction officials.\u201d\u00a0 Phillips countered, asking the Court to rely on its \u201ccommon sense,\u201d not scientific studies.<\/p>\n

To listen to the entirety of the oral arguments in Florence<\/em>, click here<\/a>.\u00a0 To read the petitioner and respondents\u2019 briefs, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At the conclusion of oral arguments on Wednesday, pundits were left guessing whether the Supreme Court would declare that Americans\u2019 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":3810,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,45,49],"tags":[126,127,862,236,429,532],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-3809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amicus","category-criminal-justice","category-human-rights","tag-civil-liberties","tag-civil-rights","tag-criminal-justice","tag-florence","tag-prisoners-rights","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-Zr","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3809\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3809"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}