Justices Struggle with Line-Drawing in Strip-Search Case; What Did the Founders Think?
The U.S. Supreme Court struggled with line-drawing in oral arguments on Wednesday as justices considered whether people arrested for minor offenses can be strip searched at jail.
Supreme Court litigator Thomas Goldstein argued on behalf of Albert Florence, who was arrested on an outstanding warrant for a fine that had already been paid after a traffic stop in 2005. Goldstein asserted that strip searches may be warranted for people arrested for serious offenses, but said a reasonable suspicion should be required to strip search others. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Law Journal and the Huffington Post have stories.
“During arguments,” the National Law Journal writes, “the justices peppered Goldstein … with questions about where and when reasonable suspicion is required and seemed at times confused and dissatisfied with his answers.”
Justice Antonin Scalia offered an originalist view, according to the Huffington Post and the Washington Post. He said the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to strip searches because they were standard practice at the founding of the nation, the Washington Post says. Goldstein disagreed with the assertion.
Prior coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “ABA Urges Supreme Court to Limit Strip Searches for Minor Offenses”
ABAJournal.com: “Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Jailhouse Strip Searches for Minor Offenses”
