Albert W. Florence was held for eight days in two counties on a civil contempt charge, even though he had paid the relevant fine.
In the process, he was strip-searched twice.
“Turn around,” he remembered being told while he stood naked before several guards and prisoners. “Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.”
As discussed here (with the link to the NYT article), this case goes beyond the broad policy at issue. As the advocate for the policy noted, on some level it seems reasonable to have a blanket policy regarding searches for those you put in general population at a prison. He admitted that the person shouldn't have been arrested, surely not held for eight days. But, that isn't the specific matter at hand here, nor the fact that race and other illegitimate factors will um "color" who is arrested and detained.
But, maybe you have to deal with that reality, particularly after the Supreme Court (5-4, Souter and O'Connor in effect switching roles) rejected a line where a mild traffic offense would not be subject to imprisonment (seizure). If you are going to detain trivial offenders, who you shouldn't anyways, before you require them to strip in front of you and bend over to expose their genitals, have some sort of reasonable suspicion. After all, assuming that just because they are being detained was controversial in the 1970s, the Supreme Court splitting on the issue 5-4 (Powell joining the dissenters on the point) even after contact visits.
Sotomayor and Alito, who in one fashion or the other actually dealt with prisoners in the tri-state area, were somewhat concerned about a per se rule given the trivial nature of some of the offenders caught up in the mix here. And, as a matter of policy, some degree of reasonable suspicion was in place by federal and various state practice. The petitioners wanted to draw a line at minor offenses, other offenses basically assumed to have suspicion. The dissents in the cited case, admittedly dissents, would have gone even further, requiring some sort of individualized suspicion across the board. But, for a person like this, especially since the state is allowed to view them in the shower or have medical personnel check them, there is little real reason to suspect contraband.
Would someone picked up for some simple possession charge have drugs in their anus or a razor blade there? There is always a fear that someone might, particularly perhaps a homeless person or some other sort who is picked up for a trivial offense but has something hidden for some reason. A few justices noted there actually was not much evidence of this though. But, it's a hard call -- the real problem really is that he shouldn't have been arrested and surely not kept that long. Attacking this policy is really a sort of indirect means of addressing the real issue. After all, this is a violation of privacy, just as drug testing is in a different fashion, but the eight days in prison probably was worse in the long run.
The case of a teenage girl being told to strip to her bra and panties because of suspicion she had prescription-strength ibuprofen pills on her person was a pretty easy case and even there the Supreme Court did not set in place a totally clear-cut rule. The chance that five justices would find the policy here illegitimate is questionable though the opinion might set some guidelines that put some limits in place. For instance, the prison's lawyer drew the line at contact searches -- that is, snapping on some gloves etc. would be quite different. Some chance of one or more concurrences or possibly a partial dissent of some type. But, a win is something of a long shot.
This is probably the best case so far for the general public to listen to, the link above providing text/audio matching. Supreme Court transcript here with multiple audio platforms and a chance to download for later.