Join the discussion.

Inklings News

Join the discussion.

Inklings News

Join the discussion.

Inklings News

Supreme Court Strip Search Ruling to Have Little Effect on Westport

On April 2, the Supreme Court ruled—by a 5-4 vote—that police officers reserve the right to strip-search individuals arrested for any offense before admitting them to jail. In the Court’s Majority Opinion, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the judges expressed their belief that they reserve no right to interfere with the judgment of police when handling detainees.

“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Kennedy wrote.

The ruling came from a 2005 case, when a New Jersey state trooper pulled over Albert W. Florence and his wife, who was driving the car and allegedly speeding. Records retrieved by the trooper—which were later discovered to be incorrect—showed that there was a warrant for Florence for an unpaid fine. Florence was strip-searched in the two separate jails he spent a week in.

Florence believed that the strip searches were unconstitutional, and that they should not have been conducted due to the nature of the offense.
According to Westport Police and D.A.R.E. Officer Ned Batlin, the ruling will have little, if any, effect on Westport. The ruling more so affects towns with county jails rather than towns like Westport, which have a municipal jailing system.

He added that traffic violations is the crime with which most Westport minors are charged, and could not recall a time when a minor charged with that was strip-searched. A motor vehicle violation, Batlin said, is not a plausible reason for a police officer to conduct a strip-search.

In the recent ruling, Justice Kennedy referred to the precedent set by the 1979 Bell v. Wolfish case, which allowed strip-searches of prisoners after “contact visits” with outsiders. This was to prevent smuggling weapons or drugs into or out of jailing facilities. The Supreme Court upheld their decision from this case, as they had previously ruled that it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to perform strip searches on detainees.

Batlin believes that there is a justifiable reason behind this decision, as strip-searches can protect prisoners by ensuring that no weapons, drugs, or harmful contraband is smuggled into jail.

Justices opposed to the ruling argue that the strip searches are a violation of privacy. Justice Stephen Breyer’s Dissenting Opinion included details from other instances in which individuals arrested for minor offenses have been subjected to “humiliating and degrading” strip searches.

One such instance was when a nun, who had served 50 years as a Sister of Divine Providence, was strip-searched after involvement in an anti-Vietnam War protest. Breyer wrote that citizens have also been strip-searched for minor traffic violations, driving with a loud muffler, and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.

Batlin has only conducted a few strip searches within his tenure at the Westport Police Department.

“[A strip-search] is embarrassing and awkward for me too,” Batlin said. “Even just a pat-down. You see it on TV, and it doesn’t look like a big deal, but it is a major deal. It’s not a violation of privacy—I think it’s intrusive, but it’s in everyone’s best interest. ”

For social studies teacher Suzanne Kammerman, the Supreme Court’s ruling was unsurprising.

“I’m not surprised about the decision due to the makeup of the Roberts court, which has sided more with law enforcement [in past decisions],” Kammerman said.

Despite the ruling, and the reasoning behind it, students seem uneased by the potential of a strip search. Any intrusion of a person’s “personal bubble” can cause an outrage. The Transportation Security Administration incorporated post-9/11 airport screening procedures to protect travelers; the magnitude of outrage that stemmed from this policy shows how sensitive people are to such procedures, even if the reason is valid and for their own safety.

“I’d probably feel violated. I’m not one to appreciate a police officer all up in my business for no apparent reason,” Will Bitsky ’12 said.
However, according to Batlin, the sole reason behind a strip search is if a police officer is able to “articulate a need to search someone for evidence, contraband, or weapons.” Therefore, some students find the ruling to be legitimate.

“If there’s probable cause, or if it’s to ensure safety, then I’d be in favor of that,” Katie Cion ’14 said, “It should be on a case-to-case scenario.”

But ultimately, the act of strip-searching, some argue, inherently revokes citizens of their right to privacy. PJ Syrrist ’13, though, believes that the ends justify the means, and that the civil liberty of privacy becomes inconsequential when it comes to the protection and safety of other citizens.

“I think that if you are a convicted felon, you—to a degree—lose your right to privacy,” Syrrist said, because “the majority of people in prison were rightfully committed of a crime.”

Batlin said that for the Westport Police Department, what the person did to get into custody will determine whether or not he or she will get strip searched.

At the end of the day, Batlin does not suspect any future decline in crime rates as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“People who break rules are going to break rules,” he said. “I do think strip searches are needed in some situations when it is absolutely necessary. God forbid they did have something, I want to go home safely at the end of the day.”

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

All Inklings News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *