Make this page my home page
  1. Drag the home icon in this panel and drop it onto the "house icon" in the tool bar for the browser

  2. Select "Yes" from the popup window and you're done!

Home  >  Topics  >  Investigations

December 30, 2003
Print Comment RSS

Md. Court Says Strip Search Unconstitutional

The Associated Press

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) -- The Court of Special Appeals has reversed the drug conviction of Chris Nieves, ruling that police obtained evidence during an unconstitutional strip search of the Washington County man.

Nieves had been sentenced to 10 years in prison after bags of crack cocaine were found in his rectum.

A unanimous ruling last week by a three-judge panel said any search is an invasion of an individual's privacy, "but a strip search procedure flies in the face of individual privacy rights. Strip searches, moreover, particularly intrude upon the individual's sanctity of his own body."

Comparing strip searches to "a pebble in the shoe of the judiciary," the opinion by Judge Raymond Thieme said courts everywhere have struggled with the issue of what justifies the "extreme intrusiveness" of a strip search.

In Nieves' case, Hagerstown police officers stopped him on Jan. 22, 2002, after the Toyota truck he was driving rolled back at an intersection and hit a police car. Officers determined he didn't have a valid drivers license and that the truck he was driving didn't belong to him.

A decision to conduct a strip search was made based on two previous drug-related arrests. During the search, officers found two small plastic baggies, each containing smaller individually wrapped baggies of crack cocaine, concealed in Nieves' rectum.

The appeals court said the strip search of Nieves, whom it described as "a minor offender who was not inherently dangerous," was based on police knowledge of his past drug history and the fact that he was driving a vehicle owned by a woman suspected of narcotics dealing.

"Neither factor alone nor the combination of the two supports the conclusion that a reasonable suspicion was present to justify the strip search," the court said.

"Where is the reasonable suspicion that drugs or other contraband are concealed in the particular place they decided to search? There is none," the opinion said.

Thieme said the judges were "troubled by the fact that, any time an individual has a prior drug history, that history alone may be used to justify a strip search of the individual upon subsequent arrests for minor offenses."

"Officers on nothing more than a 'fishing expedition' for narcotics without an articulable suspicion whatsoever will essentially be given carte blanche to violate an individual's privacy when arrested for a minor offense," the opinion said.






PoliceOne Offers

Sponsored by

P1 on Facebook

Connect with PoliceOne

Mobile Apps Facebook Twitter Google

Get the #1 Police eNewsletter

Police Newsletter Sign up for our FREE email roundup of the top news, tips columns, videos and more, sent 3 times weekly
See Sample