Troubling decision out of the United States Supreme Court yesterday

This blog is focused on criminal law in Mississippi, so the majority of the posts will naturally concern Mississippi statutes and courts. There will be a minority of posts concerning United States Supreme Court cases, and this is one of those.

The New York Times reports on the USSC's Monday decision in Florence v. County of Burlington. The appellant, Albert W. Florence, had been erroneously arrested in Burlington County, New Jersey, for an unpaid fine. After arrest, Florence was subjected to a strip search while he was processed into the Burlington County jail. Florence was again strip-searched after being transferred to the Essex County jail. As it turns out, Florence had paid the fine prior to the arrest.

Florence filed suit against the counties under 42 USC 1983, claiming that subjecting someone arrested for minor offenses to a strip search is overly invasive and violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, asserting that prison officials must have at least reasonable suspicion to strip search a detainee. There had previously been a circuit split on the issue of whether or not strip searches for minor offenses were proper.

Well, a 5-vote majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy put the split to bed, holding that prison officials had every right to strip-search detainees so long as “if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 89.) Justice Kennedy was predictably joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Samuel Alito in full, and in part by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The dissent was authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, who was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan. In the parlor game of predicting the votes of United States Supreme Court justices, this decision followed the 4-4-1 mold that has developed over the last few years, with Justice Kennedy being the wild card on many issues.

The NYT has some good coverage of the interplay between the opinions that essentially sums up the positions of the two sides:

According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

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, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, 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.

I can't resist pointing out the awful logic the normally together Justice Kennedy employed here.  And I can't help but think that if Justice Kennedy had been subjected to a strip search himself after a speeding ticket, he wouldn't be so enamored of this logic.

Another day, another blow to freedom from the so-called "conservatives" on the United States Supreme Court.

So what does this mean for Mississippians?  It means that anyone stopped and arrested for outstanding fines or any other minor offense (possession of marijuana, DUI, etc.) can be strip-searched at the jail upon arrival.  It will be interesting to see if any jails currently not performing blanket strip searches now change their policies to conduct them.