[In his concurrence] Chief Justice Roberts, quoting from an earlier decision, said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.’”

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.