Rev. Rich Broderick Criticizes Supreme Court Ruling

Rev. Rich Broderick of Cambridge has a letter to the editor in today’s Times Union regarding the Supreme Court decision that "has given permission to strip-search anyone who has been charged even with minor crimes and even when no evidence suggests the person may be concealing something."

Should you be stopped for not wearing your seat belt, for using a cellphone while driving or failing to use a turn signal, should you be subject to the humiliation of a strip search and be treated like a terrorist? The Supreme Court seems to think yes.

This case centered on a man, Albert Florence, who was in a car pulled over by the New Jersey state police.

His wife had been driving and was pulled over for speeding. He was charged with failing to pay a fine that, as it turned out, actually had been paid. A bureaucratic bungle failed to show that. He was put in a prison and strip-searched.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued: Being forced to get naked and examined by strangers is inherently "humiliating and degrading." He spoke of a case involving a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years who was stripped and searched after being arrested during an anti-war protest.

The entire letter is here.