Having said that, the question in front of the court begins with the man arriving at jail, not with the arrest. Perhaps there's another case that could be made about using arrests in a harassing manner, but I doubt it.
So the justices have to ask themselves a question: which is more important, keeping the system consistent or having compassion for this poor guy?
I'm an analytical person. My money is on keeping the system consistent, even if it's broken and this case is a bad example of what we aspire to be.
The system is screwed up enough as it is without SCOTUS running off and chasing every sob story that comes their way. If the courts start leading with their hearts, then the entire criminal justice system becomes a matter of who can make the best emotional case instead of what the law is. The chaos and harm just moves up to another level of dysfunction. A mostly self-consistent bad system is still better than a mostly inconsistent bad system.
I'm saddened the guy got treated like this. I wish there was some recourse. But in my unlearned, guesswork opinion the outcome is the only one the court had available, no matter how much you and I are disappointed with the larger state of society.
My issues with this are that a) someone gets thrown into general population while an administrative issue is being resolved, and b) the nature of his apparent offense (unpaid fine, rather than an act of commission).
Wow. So a cop who brings you in because he had a bad day or doesn't like your skin tone and has you subjected to a strip search isn't punishment? Nor is it cruel? And because everyone is equally degraded, it isn't unusual? Look, you can spout whatever "The law says..." all you want, but this is not what I want my country to become.
It's a bit late for that. The facts of this case speak for themselves:
Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. 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. He filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” on indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
I have visited jails, as part of a film crew. they are grim places, and a lot of the people who inhabit them are, frankly, villains. I've also seen collections of confiscated weapons manufactured from scrap materials whose creativity and effectiveness would put most hackers to shame. I can see the pragmatic reasoning that led the court to err on the side of law enforcement officer safety, and indeed inmate safety.
To my mind, the problem is that the nature of Florence's treatment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment for a minor administrative violation. But legally speaking it wasn't cruel because it had a practical rather than a punitive basis; and it wasn't unusual because everyone is subjected to the same degree of inspection at those facilities; and he hadn't been punished, because he hadn't been convicted; and it wasn't relevant because his counsel (correctly) focused on on other constitutional protections. And this is the problem: our constitutional rights are embedded in a procedural framework so inflexible that innocent persons can be mistakenly subjected to the most degrading treatment, and find themselves without a legal remedy because of the legal equivalent of incorrectly scoped variable (not been convicted, therefore he hasn't been punished). this ruling is civil rights disaster, and the problem will get worse before it gets better.
Regular HNers will know that I'm usually on the side of precedent even in cases where I don't like the decision. I am still not sure what Mr Florence's attorney could or should have done differently, and it would hardly have been appropriate to argue that all detainess should be held in solitary confinement pending the disposition of their case, for example - some cases need time to resolve, and jails exist in the first place because society has an interest in detaining some kinds of possible criminals in advance of trial. I haven't read the full opinion or the briefs, nor have I read enough criminal procedure or constitutional law to come up with a good alternative; so I'm speaking from my gut instead of my head, which I don't like to do. But it seems to me that this exposes a weakness in our constitution's tendency to define procedures rather than interests. The reasoning is sound, but the outcome is unconscionable in a free society. I am deeply disappointed.