Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Strip search

A strip search is a custodial search in which or correctional officers require an to remove or rearrange some or all clothing, including undergarments, to enable a of the genitals, , , breasts, or underclothing for concealed such as drugs, weapons, or other prohibited items. Unlike pat-down searches or metal detectors, it involves partial or full exposure of private areas, distinguishing it from less invasive methods while excluding manual probing or internal examination, which constitute searches. In the United States, strip searches are regulated under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, with constitutionality depending on context, suspicion level, and institutional setting. The upheld routine, suspicionless strip searches for all detainees entering general jail populations in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012), reasoning that even minor-offense arrestees pose risks of smuggling that could endanger facilities, given the difficulty of reliable alternatives. Conversely, in Safford v. Redding (2009), the Court ruled that a strip search of a 13-year-old student suspected of possessing ibuprofen violated the Fourth Amendment absent of a threat justifying such intrusion in a environment. State laws often impose additional restrictions, prohibiting strip searches for minor offenses like traffic violations unless exists, and mandating same-sex observers, documentation, and safeguards to mitigate abuse. Strip searches remain controversial due to their inherent invasiveness, potential for psychological harm, and variable effectiveness, with reports indicating low detection rates in many applications—often yielding nothing in over half of cases—prompting scrutiny of their deterrent value versus alternatives like advanced imaging technology. Proponents emphasize their role in preventing violence and illicit activity in controlled environments like prisons, where empirical challenges in measuring prevented incidents underscore causal trade-offs between erosion and institutional safety. High-profile litigation has highlighted disproportionate application to certain demographics and risks of procedural violations, fueling ongoing reforms in protocols and oversight.

Definition and Purpose

Definition

A strip search is defined as a procedure requiring an individual to remove or rearrange some or all clothing to enable visual inspection of the skin, undergarments, buttocks, genitals, anus, or—in the case of females—breasts, for the purpose of detecting concealed contraband, weapons, drugs, or evidence. This distinguishes it from pat-down or frisk searches, which involve external clothing manipulation without exposure of private areas. Strip searches are limited to external visual examination and do not include physical probing or internal manipulation of body cavities, which constitutes a separate, more invasive requiring distinct authorization and often medical involvement. Such searches are generally performed by same-sex personnel in private locations to minimize intrusion, emphasizing visual observation over tactile contact unless rearranging clothing necessitates minimal handling.

Security Rationale and Objectives

Strip searches in correctional and custodial settings serve the primary objective of detecting and preventing the introduction of , including weapons, drugs, and communication devices such as cell phones, which can facilitate , escapes, or coordinated criminal activity within facilities. These items pose direct threats to institutional , as incarcerated individuals may conceal them in cavities or affix them to the skin, evading detection through less invasive pat-downs or metal detectors. By disrupting the causal pathways through which contraband enables assaults on staff or inmates—such as sharpened implements used in stabbings or narcotics fueling aggressive behaviors—strip searches aim to safeguard personnel, detainees, and the broader public from downstream risks like facility breaches or amplified by internal networks. The rationale derives from the elevated risks inherent to confined environments, where even small quantities of prohibited materials can precipitate disproportionate harm; for instance, drugs contribute to heightened abuse and violence potential, while weapons directly empower physical confrontations. In pretrial detention centers, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that such searches, including visual inspections of body cavities following contact visits, are constitutionally permissible under a balancing test weighing security imperatives against personal intrusion, without requiring individualized probable cause in all instances. This approach acknowledges that empirical threats in these contexts—evidenced by ongoing smuggling attempts—necessitate proactive measures beyond superficial screenings to maintain order and prevent the escalation of incidents tied to illicit goods. To align with principles of minimal necessary intrusion, strip search protocols emphasize targeted application based on contextual risk factors, such as intake from external sources or post-contact scenarios, rather than indiscriminate use, thereby justifying the procedure through assessed probabilities of concealment rather than arbitrary application. Policies in many jurisdictions condition such searches on where feasible, ensuring they function as a calibrated tool rather than a , while courts have upheld broader facility-wide standards when the overall threat substantiates them. This framework prioritizes causal deterrence of harm over routine imposition, reflecting the empirical reality that undetected undermines and heightens operational dangers for all involved.

Historical Development

Origins in Law Enforcement

Strip searches emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as extensions of rudimentary procedures in prisons and controls, driven by escalating smuggling amid rapid urbanization and the growth of networks. In U.S. prisons, initial searches focused on external pat-downs for weapons and escape tools, but as inmate populations swelled—reaching over by 1926—authorities adapted to detect hidden items on the body to maintain order and prevent violence. At borders, customs practices under statutes like the 1789 Collection Act empowered officers to inspect persons for smuggled goods, evolving into more invasive methods as threats intensified. The era (1920–1933) marked a pivotal expansion, as bootleggers concealed internally to evade detection, prompting officials to employ strip searches despite uneven enforcement, such as restrictions on searching women that smugglers exploited. This period saw over 500,000 arrests for alcohol-related violations by 1925, heightening the need for thorough body inspections at ports to counter sophisticated concealment tactics. Post-World War II , with U.S. inmate numbers doubling to 200,000 by 1950, further necessitated these practices to curb contraband-fueled disruptions. By the 1970s, the U.S. —declared by President Nixon in 1971—accelerated formalization of strip search protocols amid rising internal drug concealment, where smugglers wrapped narcotics in packaging for body cavities, complicating detection in and borders. drug seizures prompted empirical refinements for efficacy, as tactics like rectal hiding proliferated, with facilities reporting increased incidents tied to external visitation and intake. These developments prioritized against verifiable smuggling threats over broader expansions, reflecting causal responses to empirical risks rather than policy shifts.

Evolution of Protocols and Legal Standards

In the mid-20th century, as correctional populations expanded globally, strip search protocols began formalizing to balance security imperatives with basic human dignity, influenced by emerging international norms. The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted in 1955, established foundational principles for prisoner treatment, emphasizing searches only when necessary for safety and conducted respectfully, though without explicit strip search guidelines until later revisions. These rules prompted gradual shifts in protocols worldwide, prioritizing empirical justifications like prevention over routine application, amid rising institutional violence data from post-World War II systems. A pivotal U.S. legal benchmark emerged in Bell v. Wolfish (1979), where the upheld visual strip and body-cavity searches of pretrial detainees following contact visits, deeming them reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the deference owed to administrators' assessments of risks—such as drugs concealed in body orifices—without requiring . The ruling, grounded in evidence of institutional safety threats, standardized such practices in detention facilities, rejecting blanket prohibitions in favor of context-specific efficacy, even as critics highlighted privacy intrusions. The 21st century saw refinements integrating risk-based thresholds, exemplified by Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012), in which the ruled 5-4 that correctional facilities could conduct suspicionless strip searches of all entrants into general populations, including those arrested for minor offenses, citing persistent introduction data (e.g., weapons and drugs from low-level offenders) that justified uniform protocols over individualized suspicion to maintain order. This decision reinforced legal standards prioritizing causal links between searches and reduced violence, resisting dilutions that empirical records showed could exacerbate smuggling. Technological advancements, particularly full-body scanners deployed widely from the 2000s onward, prompted protocol evolutions by enabling non-invasive detection of concealed items, thereby reducing strip search frequency in many facilities while preserving security outcomes superior to manual methods alone. Studies and implementations indicate scanners detect contraband missed by visual inspections (e.g., internal concealment), though limitations like false positives and inefficacy against clothing-hidden items necessitate retained manual protocols in high-risk scenarios, underscoring data-driven adaptations over outright replacement. Globally, post-2020 trends reflect heightened safeguards for juveniles, with reforms in various jurisdictions limiting or presuming against strip searches due to documented risks, often replacing them with scanner alternatives where feasible. For adults, however, protocols have endured with minimal dilution, as ongoing seizure statistics—averaging thousands of incidents annually in major systems—affirm their necessity for causal deterrence, even amid pressures. The 2015 revision of UN rules further codified this distinction, mandating same-sex, trained personnel for intrusive searches and assessments tied to verifiable threats.

Procedures and Protocols

Core Elements of Conduct

A strip search typically begins with clear verbal instructions from the conducting to the individual, directing the sequential removal of to facilitate a without physical contact. The process often proceeds in stages: first, outer garments such as coats, jackets, belts, and shoes are removed and examined; followed by inner , including shirts, pants, , and socks, to expose the body for unobstructed viewing. This stepwise approach minimizes prolonged nudity by addressing upper and lower body separately where feasible. Visual inspection encompasses all potential concealment areas, requiring the individual to turn front and back, raise arms, open the mouth for oral , run fingers through hair and behind ears, lift the feet to inspect soles, and manipulate genitalia or as needed for genital and rectal views. Officers may issue commands such as bending over, spreading limbs, or performing a "squat and cough" maneuver—where the individual with feet apart and coughs forcefully—to dislodge any concealed items from body orifices without manual intrusion. The search remains visual unless escalated to a examination under separate protocols. Documentation is integral, with the justification—such as of —logged in official records, including the date, time, location, officer identities, and outcomes. Searches often require supervisory witnessing or authorization, and video recording is mandated in certain facilities to verify conduct and findings. To uphold and , the procedure occurs in a , sanitary area shielded from non-essential observers, conducted by same-gender personnel whenever possible, with no touching of sensitive areas unless absolutely required for . Post-search, individuals receive coverings or replacement clothing promptly to restore modesty. These elements promote standardized execution, reducing ambiguity in execution and potential for disputes.

Variations and Safeguards

Strip search protocols incorporate variations based on the assessed risk posed by the individual, ensuring proportionality to maintain security while minimizing invasiveness. For high-risk detainees—those with reasonable suspicion of concealing contraband, such as weapons or drugs that could endanger facility staff or others—procedures may escalate to include visual inspection of body cavities, such as requiring the individual to bend over or spread orifices for examination. In contrast, low-threat individuals, often arrested for minor offenses without indicators of smuggling, typically undergo limited external visual checks without cavity inspection, as blanket invasive searches for such cases have been deemed unjustified absent specific suspicion. A core procedural variation mandates that searches be conducted by personnel of the same as the searched individual to respect and reduce potential for abuse, with strict documentation required. Exceptions apply only in exigent circumstances, such as imminent risk of serious harm to the detainee or others, where delaying for same-sex staff could compromise safety; in such cases, the minimal necessary cross-sex involvement is permitted, followed by immediate supervisory review. Safeguards emphasize professional conduct and oversight to prevent misuse. Officers must undergo mandatory training on search techniques, emphasizing dignity, minimal force, and recognition of indicators, as outlined in standards like the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which requires facilities to educate staff on preventing during searches. Searches occur in private areas shielded from general view, typically by two same-sex staff members, with no physical touching of sensitive areas unless medically necessary. If distress, injury, or complaints arise post-search, protocols require prompt medical evaluation and documentation to address potential health impacts. Accountability mechanisms include appeals processes for search-related grievances, allowing detainees to file formal complaints reviewed by oversight bodies, with supervisory required beforehand in many jurisdictions. Empirical audits demonstrate high : for instance, a 2023 New Orleans Police Department review found 98% adherence to strip search documentation and justification protocols, while a 2024 follow-up reported 93%, indicating structured safeguards effectively curb unfounded claims and procedural deviations in professional settings.

Applications by Context

In Correctional Facilities

Strip searches in correctional facilities are conducted routinely upon inmate , inter-unit transfers, and returns from visitation or external medical appointments to detect concealed , including weapons and drugs that enable inmate-on-inmate assaults and staff injuries in high-density environments. In U.S. prisons, 91% of facilities perform regular strip searches, with 93.7% incorporating random ones, particularly in state-operated male institutions where threats are elevated due to and incentives. These procedures target items like shanks, which are frequently recovered; across 301 surveyed facilities in 2018, the average annual weapons recovery was 33.61 per site, underscoring 's prevalence despite interception challenges. A 2021 study of U.S. prisons similarly reported an average of 34 weapons recovered per facility over 12 months, highlighting how such items, often inmate-manufactured from available materials, directly contribute to violence by arming aggressive actors in confined settings. Frequency varies by security level, with maximum-security prisons mandating searches after every visit or movement to mitigate risks from external contacts, while minimum-security sites limit them to or suspicion-based triggers due to lower violence potential. In practice, inmates in higher-risk units may face daily or post-activity strip searches, as confirmed by facility policies and officer accounts, balancing detection needs against operational demands. Yield rates remain low—often below 10% for finds—but the deterrence effect discourages attempts, as potential carriers anticipate invasive checks upon reentry. Physical searches, including strip methods, account for 53% of weapon detections in cases, per U.S. Sentencing data from 2019–2023, where 97.4% of seized weapons were homemade shanks posing lethal risks. By curtailing weapons and drugs, which fuel approximately 3% annual inmate assault rates in federal prisons, these searches sustain causal links to reduced violence through resource denial rather than elimination of all threats. Correctional metrics link contraband interdiction to lower incident volumes, as unchecked items escalate disputes into stabbings or overdoses, with weapons comprising 24.9% of federal contraband offenses. In maximum-security contexts, routine application offsets the minimal direct hit rates by enforcing behavioral compliance and preventing escalation chains in environments where proximity amplifies minor conflicts.

During Arrests and Police Custody

Strip searches during arrests and custody are conducted post-arrest at stations to detect concealed weapons, drugs, or that could endanger officers, staff, or other detainees during holding or transport. These procedures are triggered by , derived from factors such as the offense type—particularly drug trafficking or violent crimes—or indicators like bulges, erratic behavior, or prior concealment patterns, rather than blanket application to all arrestees. Roadside strip searches are generally prohibited absent exigent circumstances and , prioritizing controlled environments to minimize privacy intrusions while addressing immediate risks. Standard protocols mandate same-sex officers, visual inspections without physical probing unless warranted, and directives like , coughing, or lifting genitalia to reveal hidden items, all performed in private areas of the facility. The rationale stems from causal risks in custody: arrestees may swallow evidence, as in drug "body packing" cases where packets rupture internally if undetected, or conceal small firearms/blades in cavities to facilitate escapes or attacks. For example, in arrests involving suspected narcotics possession, officers have documented necessities for such searches to prevent evidence destruction via , which could otherwise compromise investigations or lead to medical emergencies in holding cells. This practice mitigates threats empirically linked to urban scenarios, where concealed has been recovered in custody settings to avert assaults; legal precedents affirm its role in neutralizing dangers without requiring individualized beyond suspicion for invasive checks. Variations exist by , but core objectives focus on threat elimination prior to extended , distinct from routine booking in correctional .

At Borders, Airports, and Customs

Strip searches at borders, airports, and facilities are authorized under national laws to detect concealed such as narcotics, explosives, weapons, or undeclared valuables, typically requiring beyond routine inspections. In the United States, U.S. and Border Protection (CBP) officers derive authority from statutes like 19 U.S.C. § 482 and regulations in 19 CFR 162.6, permitting non-routine personal searches—including strip searches—when there is articulable suspicion of violations, conducted in private by same-gender officers without unnecessary touching. Internationally, similar thresholds apply; for instance, in , officials may perform superficial strip searches of the naked body without physical contact upon suspicion of , as outlined in national enforcement protocols. These procedures balance imperatives against , with agencies emphasizing selectivity to minimize invasiveness, often triggered by behavioral cues, inconsistent manifests, or intelligence alerts rather than random application. Selection for such searches is profiling-based and infrequent, focusing on high-risk indicators to yield disproportionate gains; CBP data indicates that while millions of travelers are processed annually, intrusive searches represent a fraction of secondary inspections but have uncovered -concealed threats like mules swallowing packets or hiding gems in orifices. For example, in April 2025, two 19-year-old German tourists, Charlotte Pohl and Maria Lepère, were detained at , subjected to full-body scans followed by searches after CBP deemed their post-graduation travel—lacking firm hotel bookings and relying on loose plans—suspicious and potentially indicative of intent violations or undeclared activities, resulting in their without found. A similar incident occurred in May 2025, when a U.S. lieutenant's wife was -searched and held at a facility upon arrival, cited for inadequate documentation on a visit to her husband, highlighting how procedural can escalate to invasive measures absent evident . The efficacy of these low-volume interventions lies in disrupting smuggling networks, with border agencies reporting that personal searches, including strips, facilitate seizures of high-value items otherwise undetectable by pat-downs or alone; for instance, U.S. border operations have intercepted body-concealed narcotics valued in millions, contributing to broader enforcement against rings. Such outcomes underscore causal trade-offs: while most searches yield no finds, the rare detections of explosives or drugs avert potential harms like or overdose epidemics, justifying protocols under standards despite privacy costs. Protocols often integrate preliminary non-invasive tools like ion to build suspicion thresholds, reducing reliance on full strips, though legal frameworks prioritize empirical security needs over blanket restrictions.

In Schools and Juvenile Settings

In public schools, strip searches of students are highly restricted under the Fourth Amendment, requiring that the individual possesses specifically concealed in a manner necessitating exposure of private areas, as established by the U.S. in Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (2009). In that case, officials searched a 13-year-old girl for prescription-strength ibuprofen based on an uncorroborated tip, directing her to remove clothing and shake out her undergarments, but the Court ruled 8-1 that this exceeded constitutional bounds absent particularized evidence of body concealment, emphasizing schools' leeway for safety while demanding heightened justification for intrusive measures. Lower courts have since applied this standard, deeming most school strip searches presumptively unreasonable without exigent indicators like observed bulges or reliable intelligence of weapons or drugs hidden against the body. Such searches remain rare in K-12 environments due to their psychological impact on minors and potential for , typically limited to crises like active threats of or drug distribution disrupting learning. Protocols mandate same-gender adult supervision, avoidance of physical contact, and documentation, but violations have prompted lawsuits highlighting inadequate training. In juvenile detention facilities, strip searches occur more frequently, often upon intake or of introduction, to mitigate risks of weapons, drugs, or escape aids amid confined youth populations prone to . A 2025 review by Colorado's examined 1,009 such searches across state facilities from 2023 to mid-2025, finding in approximately 10% of reasonable-suspicion cases, underscoring occasional security yields like narcotics or makeshift weapons despite low overall detection rates. However, the analysis revealed 1,006 policy breaches in authorization, documentation, or rationale recording, indicating systemic oversight gaps that compromise legitimacy without eliminating the searches' role in averting facility disruptions analogous to adult threats but amplified by adolescents' and . Advocates note that while yields justify targeted use, alternatives like advanced pat-downs evaluation to balance deterrence against in developing psyches.

Legality and Regulations

United States

In the , the legality of strip searches is governed primarily by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, with courts balancing institutional security needs against individual privacy interests. The has upheld routine visual strip searches in correctional facilities as constitutional when conducted pursuant to established protocols, as in Bell v. Wolfish (1979), where the Court ruled that visual body-cavity inspections of pretrial detainees following contact visits were reasonable given the risks of smuggling. This precedent was extended in Florence v. County of Burlington (2012), a 5-4 decision affirming that jails may perform suspicionless strip searches on all entrants to the general population, including those arrested for minor offenses like traffic violations, to prevent introduction. These rulings emphasize to correctional administrators' judgments on facility safety, provided searches are not punitive or excessively invasive. In contrast, strip searches in schools face stricter scrutiny due to minors' heightened privacy expectations. The in Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (2009) held, in an 8-1 ruling, that a strip search of a 13-year-old girl suspected of possessing ibuprofen violated the Fourth Amendment, as the school's did not justify the intrusion's scope absent evidence of body-concealed drugs. The decision clarified that while schools may conduct searches based on rather than , strip searches require particularized justification tied to the suspected violation's nature, leading to refined protocols emphasizing alternatives like pat-downs or metal detectors before escalating. Notable violations have prompted settlements and reforms without invalidating the practice outright. In 2019, County agreed to a $53 million settlement in a class-action alleging unconstitutional group strip searches of tens of thousands of female detainees, where women were subjected to visual inspections in groups without individualized suspicion, violating privacy rights. This payout, the largest in county history at the time, resulted in enhanced training and oversight protocols for jail intake searches. Similarly, in youth facilities, a September 2025 report by Colorado's Ombudsman documented over 1,000 policy violations in strip searches at state juvenile detention centers from late 2023 to mid-2025, with the vast majority yielding no contraband and lapses including inadequate supervision and documentation. Such incidents have driven targeted safeguards, like mandatory video monitoring and contraband-detection alternatives, affirming strip searches' utility in high-risk settings while curbing excesses through litigation-enforced standards.

United Kingdom

In the , strip searches are primarily governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 () and its associated codes of practice, which mandate that such searches occur only on the basis of reasonable grounds indicating necessity, typically within custody settings following . Code C, paragraph 11, stipulates that a strip search in may proceed solely if required to remove an article prohibited under custody rules—such as weapons, drugs, or items posing harm—or if there are grounds to suspect concealment of or harmful substances, with the process confined to exposing areas beyond outer like coats or gloves. These searches must be performed by an officer of the same sex as the detainee, in a suitably area not observable by or monitoring equipment unless exceptional risks justify it, and full details of justification, conduct, and findings must be recorded in the custody record to ensure accountability. For pre-arrest stop and search scenarios, Code A, paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7, permits more intrusive examinations, including strip elements, only under specific statutory authorizations like section 2 of the Act 1988 (for knives) or section 60 of the and Public Order Act 1994 (suspicionless in designated areas), requiring officers to articulate objective of concealed items posing immediate threats. These provisions emphasize empirical justification tied to observable behaviors or intelligence, preserving operational while prohibiting routine or speculative application, with post-search recording mandatory to facilitate oversight. The Immigration Act 2016 introduced section 51, empowering designated custody officers in immigration removal centres to conduct strip searches specifically for nationality or identity documents, applicable to those aged 18 or over, or to minors with additional from a more senior officer based on . This measure addressed gaps in verifying identities amid documented increases in undocumented entries, with empirical data from operations showing frequent concealment of passports or visas in clothing, yet it elicited minimal parliamentary on despite critiques framing it as disproportionate to interests. Empirical usage remains limited, comprising roughly 1-2% of recorded police interactions involving detention or targeted stops in high-crime urban areas, where data from forces like the demonstrate yields of such as blades or narcotics sufficient to justify the intrusion against baseline arrest volumes exceeding 700,000 annually across . Recent consultations on amending Codes A and C propose heightened safeguards for juveniles, including mandatory appropriate adult presence and protocols, which, while responsive to isolated reports, could constrain officer discretion by layering procedural requirements that delay responses to acute threats in custody suites handling volatile suspects.

Australia

In (NSW), strip searches have been routinely conducted at music festivals since the early , often prompted by detection dogs indicating prohibited substances, with a significant increase targeting attendees post-2020 amid concerns over festival-related drug deaths. Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, police require of possession of prohibited items, including drugs or weapons, but practices at events like those in NSW and have involved thousands of searches, disproportionately affecting minors. Empirical outcomes reveal low contraband detection rates, with reports indicating that approximately 86.5% of strip searches at festivals yield no prohibited drugs, though some seizures occur and the presence of searches is argued to deter escalation by discouraging attendees from carrying larger quantities or weapons that could lead to overdoses or violence. Calls to ban such practices, often citing psychological harm, overlook causal links where reduced drug influx at events correlates with fewer on-site incidents, as evidenced by maintained security despite low positive yields. In 2025, the NSW Supreme Court ruled in a landmark that mere suspicion of prohibited possession, such as from a drug dog's indication, is insufficient grounds for a strip search, awarding $93,000 in damages to a lead unlawfully searched at a and invalidating systemic practices from 2018-2022. This refines application for drug-related suspicions but preserves the power for weapons or other contraband under stricter reasonable grounds, prompting national scrutiny while retaining safeguards against immediate threats at public events.

Canada

In Canada, strip searches conducted by police incident to are governed by principles established in R. v. Golden, 3 S.C.R. 318, which requires officers to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the search will uncover weapons or , rather than authorizing routine application. The mandated procedural safeguards, including authorization by a senior officer, conduct by same-sex personnel where possible, and private settings to minimize humiliation, emphasizing that such searches infringe section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (protection against unreasonable ) and must be justified as reasonably necessary under section 1. Post-Golden, courts have identified over 89 instances where strip searches violated Charter rights due to lack of justification, often excluding obtained thereby, though without prohibiting the practice outright. In federal correctional facilities, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), section 48, permits routine strip searches of inmates without individualized suspicion in prescribed scenarios, such as after contact visits or exposure to areas with opportunities, conducted by same-sex staff to prevent . (CSC) policies under Commissioner's Directive 566-7 prioritize least intrusive methods, including frisk searches or body scans before escalating to strips, with recent 2024 regulations amending CCRA implementation to favor detailed body scans over routine strips where feasible to reduce intrusiveness while maintaining security. Courts have upheld these under proportionality tests when linked to specific security risks but have invalidated suspicionless applications in class actions alleging hundreds of improper searches since 1992, prompting policy reviews without legislative abolition. At borders and ports of entry, the Customs Act empowers Canada Border Services Agency officers to conduct strip searches as non-routine measures upon reasonable suspicion of smuggling contraband, reflecting diminished privacy expectations at international frontiers but still subject to Charter section 8 scrutiny for reasonableness. Such searches target detection of drugs, weapons, or undeclared goods, with procedural requirements including same-sex officers and medical involvement for invasive extensions, balanced against national security imperatives under section 1 justification. Incidents of overreach, including Royal Canadian Mounted Police policy inadequacies identified in 2020 reviews, have led to enhanced training and oversight without curtailing border authority.

International and Other Jurisdictions

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Rules adopted in 2015, establish proportionality as a core principle for body searches, mandating that they be conducted only when necessary for security and in a manner respecting human dignity and , with no routine application of intrusive methods like strip searches. Rule 53 specifically requires searches to avoid degrading treatment, prioritizing less invasive alternatives where feasible, as reinforced by guidance from Penal Reform International emphasizing exhaustion of non-intrusive options before escalating to strip or cavity searches. These rules serve as a baseline for assessing efficacy in detection, where indicates routine strip searches yield low detection rates compared to targeted, risk-based applications, prompting states to align policies with this framework for balanced security outcomes. In the , variations exist from the Mandela Rules baseline, with exemplifying caution in high-risk contexts like airport-related cases and deportations; a 2024 Council of Committee for the Prevention of report criticized practices where returnees faced full undressing during pre-deportation strip searches, recommending phased clothing removal to preserve dignity while maintaining security checks. policy historically rejected widespread full-body scanners at airports due to concerns, as stated in 2008 by the , leading to reliance on pat-downs and selective strip searches in correctional settings only for justified suspicion, which data from EU border checks show detects in under 5% of cases but upholds over blanket routines. In Asia, jurisdictions like adopt stricter protocols amid high risks, with Prisons Regulations permitting officer-conducted searches of inmates and visitors upon , often integrating visual inspections as a frontline measure despite tech advancements, reflecting a causal emphasis on deterrence in drug-prone environments where interception rates exceed 20% annually per official reports. This approach prioritizes reliability of direct observation over scanners alone, as hybrid methods in Singapore's and prisons have sustained low escape rates for hidden items. African nations in smuggling hotspots, such as , enforce rigorous searches in correctional facilities to counter perimeter breaches and visitor , but trends show a pivot to hybrids; the Department of Correctional Services procured 14 body s in 2008 to reduce invasive searches, targeting the 70% of entering via bodily concealment, while retaining visual protocols for scanner limitations in detecting non-metallic items. Similarly, in and other high-risk areas, policies mandate suspicion-based searches under anti-trafficking laws, yielding higher efficacy in drug detection per UNODC data, though implementation gaps persist due to resource constraints, underscoring the Mandela Rules' call for to avoid overuse without empirical security gains. Globally, prison systems trend toward scanner-strip hybrids for superior detection—scanners identifying 90% of internal missed by visuals alone per studies—yet retain strip searches for high-risk cases where tech fails, as in Japan's shift from routine strips to puffer machines supplemented by targeted inspections, enhancing causal without routine degradation. This evolution, evident in post-2015 Mandela-aligned reforms, balances dignity with evidence-based security, reducing psychological impacts while addressing smuggling's persistence.

Technological Alternatives

Body Scanners and Non-Invasive Methods

Body scanners, including millimeter-wave and low-dose systems such as or variants, employ electromagnetic waves or to generate images revealing concealed non-metallic objects like drugs, plastics, or ceramics under clothing, without physical contact or disrobing. These technologies penetrate clothing to detect anomalies on or near the body's surface, offering a non-invasive alternative to traditional visual inspections in high-security environments like prisons. In the , millimeter-wave scanners were piloted in prisons such as Magilligan and Hydebank Wood in the late , with body scanners rolled out more broadly starting in 2020 across 16 facilities including and , expanding to 75 units by 2023. Adoption of these has demonstrably curtailed routine invasive searches by identifying surface-level , with prison data showing over 46,900 suspect items detected across closed adult male sites in the initial years post-installation, thereby reducing the frequency of full visual examinations where scans yield negatives. However, trials and operational reviews indicate alone cannot eliminate the need for invasive methods, as they frequently fail to detect deeply concealed items, such as those ingested, inserted into body cavities, or adapted to evade detection thresholds—limitations confirmed in security analyses showing vulnerability to knives, guns, or explosives hidden beyond superficial layers. X-ray variants improve on millimeter-wave for internal visibility but still require follow-up invasive searches for confirmed suspicions, preserving visual methods for comprehensive coverage against low-tech, adaptive concealment tactics. From a cost-benefit perspective, body scanners demand substantial upfront investment—approximately $135,000 per unit plus $25,000 annual maintenance—contrasted with the lower marginal costs of trained staff conducting visual inspections, which remain efficacious for verifying scanner misses in resource-constrained settings. While scanners streamline initial screening and deter overt , their deployment complements rather than supplants invasive protocols, as evidenced by ongoing requirements for visual confirmation in and U.S. prison policies to address evasion of radiological limits.

Integration with Traditional Searches

In correctional facilities, body serve as the primary screening tool in hybrid protocols, with strip searches conducted subsequently to resolve alerts or confirm anomalies, particularly for concealed in body cavities that non-penetrating may miss. Transmission systems, which penetrate tissues to visualize internal items, are paired with visual inspections during strip searches to maximize detection accuracy, as alone cannot always distinguish organic materials from bodily features. This sequenced approach triages individuals efficiently, limiting invasive procedures to scanner-indicated cases. False positives from scanner image ambiguities—often due to movement, small items, or anatomical variations—frequently trigger confirmatory searches, increasing procedural demands on staff. protocols mandate immediate image deletion or non-storage to mitigate risks from detailed anatomical outputs, though varies and has faced for potential operator misuse. In remote or low-resource settings, and specialized requirements complicate sustained , occasionally leading to reliance on manual methods. Correctional studies demonstrate that combining body scanners with targeted strip searches yields superior contraband detection over strip searches alone, as scanners enable precise alerting that guides invasive verification while reducing overall search volume. In facilities, this model decreased routine strip searches post-implementation in 2017–2020, sustaining detection of metals and larger items through supplemental checks despite evasion adaptations by inmates.

Effectiveness and Evidence

Empirical Data on Contraband Detection

Empirical studies report detection rates from strip searches ranging from 0.01% to 10%, with lower yields in routine applications and higher rates when searches are based on . In a 2025 review of Colorado's Division of Youth Services facilities, 1,009 strip searches conducted under from 2023 to mid-2025 detected in 10% of instances, primarily small items like or makeshift weapons. In adult prison contexts, strip searches target body-concealed , contributing to annual facility recoveries averaging 31 cell phones and approximately 34 weapons, alongside drugs such as opioids or . These items, though detected in low volumes relative to total searches—often below 2% in audited logs—include high-severity threats like body-packaged narcotics averaging 28 distinct substances per facility yearly, per summaries. Office of Justice Programs analyses and facility audits confirm these patterns hold across U.S. correctional systems, with strip searches yielding consistent detections of cavity-hidden drugs and edged weapons despite procedural variances.

Security Benefits and Deterrence Effects

searches in correctional facilities elevate the perceived risk of detection for individuals attempting to conceal internally, thereby deterring smuggling efforts in line with , which posits that the of outweighs its severity in influencing . Correctional administrators report that routine search protocols, including searches, inform potential smugglers of heightened scrutiny, reducing the frequency of attempts to introduce drugs, weapons, or other illicit items via bodily concealment. Effective contraband interdiction, bolstered by strip searches as a targeted measure, correlates with diminished facility violence, as uncontrolled illicit items often fuel assaults, gang activities, and staff endangerment. Surveys of U.S. prison systems indicate that contraband presence exacerbates physical violence and misconduct, with drugs and weapons enabling predatory behaviors among inmates. By limiting the influx of such materials, search regimes contribute to safer environments, though comprehensive strategies incorporating multiple detection layers yield the strongest outcomes. Unlike pat-down searches, which frequently overlook items hidden in body cavities or orifices, strip searches provide visual and manual verification that empirically addresses these evasion tactics, enhancing overall security without relying solely on non-invasive alternatives. This capability ensures that high-risk entries—such as post-visitation or transfers—face thorough scrutiny, preventing the escalation of contraband-driven threats.

Controversies and Criticisms

Claims of Humiliation and Psychological Impact

Claims of during strip searches often center on feelings of degradation and invasion of , with detainees describing experiences as deeply distressing, particularly when conducted in view of others or without individualized suspicion. For individuals with histories of sexual or , which affect 70-90% of youth in justice systems, such searches can evoke revictimization, exacerbating short-term stress, anxiety, and . Rare allegations extend to long-term effects like (PTSD), though population-level data attributes most PTSD in incarcerated groups to cumulative traumas rather than isolated searches. Empirical evidence tempers these claims, showing limited verified instances of severe psychological harm directly attributable to strip searches. Audits reveal low rates of substantiated complaints; for example, in New York state prisons, only 29 grievances related to strip searches were filed in 2012 amid routine institutional practices, indicating rarity relative to search volume. Professional protocols, including same-gender officers and privacy measures, further mitigate impacts, with reports noting transient distress over enduring trauma when procedures are followed. Contraband detection yields remain low (0.01-0.015% in some systems), but this reflects preventive efficacy rather than excess, as unchecked items pose ongoing risks. Civil liberties advocates prioritize human , arguing that routine searches inflict unnecessary psychological costs absent , potentially violating constitutional protections against unreasonable intrusions. Security proponents counter that forgoing them heightens institutional dangers, as —drugs, weapons—fuels assaults on officers and inmates, with interdiction strategies like searches essential to maintaining order in high-risk environments. This trade-off underscores causal realities: while dignity erosion is subjective and often unquantified, empirical patterns of low validated harm support searches' role in averting verifiable threats like from smuggled items.

Disparities in Application and Oversight Failures

Strip searches exhibit demographic disparities, with higher application rates observed among racial minorities, youth, and individuals in urban areas. In , , police data from 2018–2021 indicated that Black and individuals faced strip search rates disproportionate to their share, comprising elevated percentages of searches relative to overall s, though correlated with higher involvement in drug-related stops. Similarly, in , Black children were up to six times more likely to be strip-searched between 2016 and 2020 compared to white children, often in urban settings linked to suspected drug possession. Critics, including advocacy groups, attribute these patterns to and institutional bias, arguing they exceed what offense data alone would predict. Defenders, citing arrest statistics, contend the disparities reflect empirical profiles, as national data show Black individuals, despite comprising 13% of the U.S. , accounting for 25% of arrests in recent years, with similar overrepresentation in drug offenses prompting searches in high-crime urban locales. Youth face amplified disparities, particularly in custodial settings where strip searches occur post-arrest or intake. Urban youth from minority backgrounds encounter higher frequencies due to elevated stop rates in areas with concentrated drug activity, where empirical correlations between demographics and offense types—such as —drive procedural application. These patterns align with victimization surveys confirming disproportionate criminal involvement in specified groups, suggesting causal links to policing intensity rather than arbitrary . Oversight failures compound these issues through procedural lapses and inadequate documentation. In Colorado's juvenile detention centers, staff violated strip-search policies over 1,000 times between late 2023 and mid-2024, including failures to justify searches, ensure same-gender oversight, or record outcomes, with the vast majority yielding no contraband. Such violations highlight systemic gaps in training and supervision, as facilities conducted routine searches without evidence of individualized risk, eroding procedural safeguards. In England and Wales, audits revealed nearly one in 25 child strip searches from 2016–2021 lacked proper authorization or follow-up, exposing children to unnecessary exposure amid inconsistent logging. These lapses persist despite guidelines mandating empirical justification, underscoring the need for stricter adherence to limit non-essential applications.

Reforms and Policy Debates

In , legislative efforts in 2023 sought to raise the threshold for conducting strip searches in correctional facilities from to , aiming to curb routine applications while preserving authority for heightened security needs; however, the proposal was amended to instead mandate the use of body scanning machines during prisoner transfers and fund pilot programs for scanners as alternatives. By August 2025, state funding supported four body scanners in prisons explicitly to reduce reliance on manual strip searches, reflecting a shift toward technological without outright bans. In , a September 2025 New South Wales Supreme Court ruling in a lawsuit over music festival strip searches declared that mere suspicion of prohibited drug possession does not justify the procedure, invalidating numerous actions as unlawful and awarding $93,000 in damages to the lead plaintiff, prompting calls to restrict searches of young people while affirming stricter evidentiary standards for their use. The decision narrows application in low-threat contexts like events but upholds the practice's availability under (Powers and Responsibilities) Act provisions where reasonable grounds exist, influencing national discussions on calibrating powers to prevent abuse without eliminating preventive tools linked to contraband interdiction. United Kingdom policy consultations in 2024 proposed amendments to Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes A and C to enhance safeguards for strip searches of children and vulnerable individuals, including requirements for senior officer authorization, parental notification where feasible, and risk assessments to minimize exposure of intimate areas, balancing procedural necessity against potential trauma. These reforms emphasize documented justification over blanket policies, countering abolitionist arguments by retaining the measure for scenarios where non-invasive alternatives prove inadequate, as evidenced by ongoing prison security protocols. Broader debates pit proposals for heightened suspicion thresholds or youth exemptions—often advanced by advocates prioritizing psychological dignity—against security-focused retention, where causal links between undetected and inmate harms underscore the need for evidence-based adjustments rather than categorical prohibitions lacking viable substitutes. Post-2020 reforms in multiple jurisdictions have trended toward limiting juvenile strip searches, yet adult applications persist amid recognition that empirical security imperatives outweigh unproven dignity-only rationales, with technological integration emerging as a pathway.

Notable Incidents and Cases

In the , the legality of strip searches is governed primarily by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, with courts balancing institutional security needs against individual privacy interests. The has upheld routine visual strip searches in correctional facilities as constitutional when conducted pursuant to established protocols, as in Bell v. Wolfish (1979), where the Court ruled that visual body-cavity inspections of pretrial detainees following contact visits were reasonable given the risks of smuggling. This precedent was extended in Florence v. County of Burlington (2012), a 5-4 decision affirming that jails may perform suspicionless strip searches on all entrants to the general population, including those arrested for minor offenses like traffic violations, to prevent introduction. These rulings emphasize deference to correctional administrators' judgments on facility safety, provided searches are not punitive or excessively invasive. In contrast, strip searches in schools face stricter scrutiny due to minors' heightened privacy expectations. The in Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (2009) held, in an 8-1 ruling, that a strip search of a 13-year-old girl suspected of possessing ibuprofen violated the Fourth Amendment, as the school's did not justify the intrusion's scope absent evidence of body-concealed drugs. The decision clarified that while schools may conduct searches based on rather than , strip searches require particularized justification tied to the suspected violation's nature, leading to refined protocols emphasizing alternatives like pat-downs or metal detectors before escalating. Notable violations have prompted settlements and reforms without invalidating the practice outright. In 2019, County agreed to a $53 million settlement in a class-action alleging unconstitutional group strip searches of tens of thousands of female detainees, where women were subjected to visual inspections in groups without individualized suspicion, violating privacy rights. This payout, the largest in county history at the time, resulted in enhanced training and oversight protocols for jail intake searches. Similarly, in youth facilities, a September 2025 report by Colorado's Ombudsman documented over 1,000 policy violations in strip searches at state juvenile detention centers from late 2023 to mid-2025, with the vast majority yielding no contraband and lapses including inadequate supervision and documentation. Such incidents have driven targeted safeguards, like mandatory video monitoring and contraband-detection alternatives, affirming strip searches' utility in high-risk settings while curbing excesses through litigation-enforced standards.

Australia

In New South Wales (NSW), strip searches have been routinely conducted at music festivals since the early 2010s, often prompted by drug detection dogs indicating prohibited substances, with a significant increase targeting youth attendees post-2020 amid concerns over festival-related drug deaths. Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, police require reasonable suspicion of possession of prohibited items, including drugs or weapons, but practices at events like those in NSW and Victoria have involved thousands of searches, disproportionately affecting minors. Empirical outcomes reveal low contraband detection rates, with reports indicating that approximately 86.5% of strip searches at festivals yield no prohibited drugs, though some seizures occur and the presence of searches is argued to deter escalation by discouraging attendees from carrying larger quantities or weapons that could lead to overdoses or violence. Calls to ban such practices, often citing psychological harm, overlook causal links where reduced drug influx at events correlates with fewer on-site incidents, as evidenced by maintained security despite low positive yields. In 2025, the NSW Supreme Court ruled in a landmark class action that mere suspicion of prohibited drug possession, such as from a drug dog's indication, is insufficient grounds for a strip search, awarding $93,000 in damages to a lead plaintiff unlawfully searched at a festival and invalidating systemic practices from 2018-2022. This refines application for drug-related suspicions but preserves the power for weapons or other contraband under stricter reasonable grounds, prompting national scrutiny while retaining safeguards against immediate threats at public events.

United Kingdom and Canada

In the , the case of Child Q involved a 15-year-old black girl strip-searched by two officers at her on December 5, 2020, following suspicion of possession after a search by school staff. The search, conducted without an appropriate or involvement of an , exposed the girl's intimate areas and found no , prompting a local review that identified adultification bias and procedural failures under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 () Code A. In June 2025, a disciplinary ruled gross against the officers for a disproportionate and humiliating search, leading to their dismissal without notice. This incident, amid broader data showing over 3,000 children strip-searched by police in in 2023 alone—often yielding no finds—underscored rare but scrutinized applications in non-custodial youth contexts, though custody strip searches under have detected concealed drugs and weapons in high-threat detentions. UK immigration enforcement has employed strip searches at borders and detention centers since at least 2016, particularly for suspected internal concealment amid elevated risks from irregular migration routes, with data indicating over 172,000 custody strip searches in from 2016 to 2021, many linked to drug or threats in diverse detainee populations. Misuse claims have surfaced in immigration settings, but verified abuses remain low relative to operational volume, with effectiveness affirmed in intercepting attempts that evade pat-downs or scanners due to body cavity hides. In , R. v. Golden (2001 SCC 83) established binding criteria for strip searches incident to lawful arrest, arising from the search of a man arrested for drug trafficking on October 26, 1997, where officers recovered 13 rocks of from his buttocks after visual inspection and squatting commands at a police division. The upheld the search's authorization by reasonable grounds for concealment but ruled it reasonable only under strict limits—conducted at a facility, same-sex officers, no routine application—to comply with section 8 of the against unreasonable , rejecting automatic post-arrest strips as they fail causal necessity for evidence preservation in non-body-carry offenses. This framework has validated utility in custody for detecting ingested or hidden , as in Golden's direct yield, while curbing overreach. Canadian challenges in custody have tested post-2001, with courts finding section 8 breaches in cases lacking individualized suspicion or procedural safeguards, such as arbitrary detentions preceding strips or failures to offer counsel beforehand. At borders, strip searches under the Customs Act have detected smuggling, including drugs and undeclared items in multicultural traveler flows, with low documented abuses but empirical value in exigent concealments beyond device or luggage scans. Both nations exhibit low verified procedural abuses proportional to use, with high causal efficacy against persistent concealment tactics in custody and border threats.

References

  1. [1]
    Section 2933.32 | Body cavity search, strip search - Ohio Laws
    (3) "Strip search" means an inspection of the genitalia, buttocks, breasts, or undergarments of a person that is preceded by the removal or rearrangement of ...
  2. [2]
    725 ILCS 5/103-1
    (d) "Strip search" means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual inspection of the genitals, ...Missing: legal | Show results with:legal
  3. [3]
    19.2-59.1. Strip searches prohibited; exceptions - Virginia Law
    For purposes of this section, "strip search" means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his clothing so as to permit a visual ...
  4. [4]
    MCL - Section 764.25a - Michigan Legislature
    "strip search" means a search which requires a person to remove his or her clothing to expose underclothing, breasts, buttocks, or genitalia.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  5. [5]
    strip search | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    A strip search is an inspection of a naked person. Strip searches are generally improper unless supported by probable cause.
  6. [6]
    Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington
    Apr 2, 2012 · It concluded that any policy of “strip searching” nonindict- able offenders without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment. A ...
  7. [7]
    Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding | 557 U.S. 364 (2009)
    Jun 25, 2009 · The issue here is whether a 13-year-old student's Fourth Amendment right was violated when she was subjected to a search of her bra and ...
  8. [8]
    Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 544.193 - MO.gov
    (2) "Strip search" means the removal or rearrangement of some or all of the clothing of a person so as to permit an inspection of the genitals, buttocks, anus, ...
  9. [9]
    The 2025 Florida Statutes - Online Sunshine
    (1) As used in this section, the term “strip search” means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a ...
  10. [10]
    Police believe strip-searching children can be effective, but ...
    Aug 18, 2024 · The report says that when young people are strip-searched, nothing is found in about half the cases. In comparison, evidence of a crime is found ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  11. [11]
    UNSW report reveals extraordinary increase in police strip searches
    Aug 22, 2019 · Dr Sentas says most strip searches yield nothing of evidential value but can have a traumatic effect on the person searched.Missing: effectiveness empirical
  12. [12]
    U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student ...
    Jun 25, 2009 · US Supreme Court declares strip search of 13-year-old student unconstitutional. Case: Safford Unified School District v. Redding.Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  13. [13]
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/255
  14. [14]
    Section 5120.421 - Ohio Revised Code - Ohio Laws
    (5) "Strip search" means an inspection of the genitalia, buttocks, breasts, or undergarments of a person that is preceded by the removal or rearrangement of ...<|separator|>
  15. [15]
    New Strip Search Paradigm - Office of Justice Programs
    A strip search is defined as the observation of an unclothed person for the purpose of determining the presence of a weapon, drugs, or other item of contraband.
  16. [16]
    Bell v. Wolfish | 441 U.S. 520 (1979)
    The District Court upheld the strip-search procedure but prohibited the body cavity searches, absent probable cause to believe that the inmate is concealing ...
  17. [17]
    Contraband Detection and Control | National Institute of Justice
    Drugs and weapons pose a particular risk in prison environments, where there is a high potential for violence and drug abuse. Incarcerated individuals can use ...Missing: incidents | Show results with:incidents
  18. [18]
    Strip search policies in jails - Corrections1
    Jan 27, 2011 · Strip searches are an important procedure in jails and prisons. They are an invaluable means of preventing introduction of contraband items, particularly ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Blanket Policies for Strip Searching Pretrial Detainees
    Research has consistently found that strip searches are invasive, humiliating, and traumatizing even when conducted professionally and according to protocol. ...
  20. [20]
    Supreme Court Says Jails Can Strip Search You – Even for Traffic ...
    Apr 3, 2012 · More significantly, perhaps, at least 10 states already prohibit routine strip searches without reasonable suspicion, including New Jersey.
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Contraband and Searches - Shasta County
    Correctional Deputies will generally consider the reason for the search, the scope, intrusion, manner and location of the search, and will utilize the least ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
  22. [22]
    History of Corrections in America
    Aug 1, 2025 · The United States federal prison system was formally established in 1891 with the passage of the Three Prisons Act. This legislation authorized ...Missing: procedures contraband 20th century
  23. [23]
    The Border Search Muddle - Harvard Law Review
    Jun 1, 2019 · The Supreme Court has sometimes suggested, that case is the border search, an exception to the warrant requirement “as old as the Fourth Amendment itself.”
  24. [24]
    U.S. Marshals Role During Prohibition
    US Marshals were the principal enforcing agents of the Prohibition laws until the Treasury Department created the Bureau of Prohibition in 1927.
  25. [25]
    The Bureau and the Great Experiment - FBI
    Jan 24, 2020 · In Savannah, over the course of 1922, more than 50 agents were called in to investigate a large-scale conspiracy to violate prohibition laws. By ...
  26. [26]
    2 Rising Incarceration Rates - The National Academies Press
    The chapter then explores the fundamental question of the relationship of the growth in incarceration to crime. To this end, it summarizes two lines of research ...Missing: contraband | Show results with:contraband<|control11|><|separator|>
  27. [27]
    [PDF] The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 1975-1980
    1975-1980. During this period, drug use in America escalated, and by 1979, 26 million Americans were considered regular drug us-ers.
  28. [28]
    A global review of prison drug smuggling routes and trends in the ...
    Nov 1, 2022 · The main smuggling routes for drugs into prisons are visitors; mail; prisoners on reception, remand, or work release; staff; and perimeter ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Contraband and Interdiction Modalities Used in Correctional Facilities
    The number of contraband interdiction interventions a facility employs, and its security staff-inmate ratio, also impact contraband levels. This summary ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of ...
    Rule 1. All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings. No prisoner shall be subjected to, and all.
  31. [31]
    UN launches 'Nelson Mandela Rules' on improving treatment of ...
    Oct 7, 2015 · In addition, he noted the new rules provide for the first time guidance on intrusive searches, including strip and body cavity searches, and ...
  32. [32]
    BELL v. WOLFISH, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) - FindLaw Caselaw
    The District Court upheld the strip-search procedure but prohibited the body ... justify the anal and genital searches described in this case. I therefore ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  33. [33]
    Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington
    Oct 12, 2011 · A case in which the Court held that prisons that conduct suspicion-less strip searches on incoming inmates do not violate the prisoner's ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Contraband Detection Technology in Correctional Facilities
    May 25, 2021 · A review of full body scanners: An alternative to strip searches of incarcerated individuals – 2017 Report to the Legislature. Department of ...
  35. [35]
    Why Are We Still Strip-Searching Prisoners? - The New York Times
    Mar 20, 2025 · The report explained that body scanners are much more effective at detecting contraband because strip searches generally do not reveal items ...<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    Scanners, not strip searches, are better for prisons | The Seattle Times
    Sep 15, 2023 · When it comes to intercepting contraband and deterring smuggling operations, strip searches in prisons are practically useless.
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Addressing Trauma: Eliminating Strip Searches - Juvenile Law Center
    A strip search is a “search that requires a person to remove or arrange some clothing so as to permit a visual inspection of the person's breasts, buttocks,.
  38. [38]
    [PDF] Body searches | Penal Reform International
    Body searches include pat-downs (over clothed body), strip searches (removal of clothing), and body-cavity searches (examination of body orifices).<|separator|>
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Searches of Detainees - ICE
    A body cavity search is an inspection for contraband or any other foreign item, in a body cavity of a detainee, by use of fingers or simple instruments, such as ...Missing: distinction | Show results with:distinction
  40. [40]
    None
    ### Summary of Guidelines for Inmate Strip-Searches (Administrative Directive 6.7, Effective 01/30/2024)
  41. [41]
    [PDF] 2.10 Searches of Detainees - ICE
    A strip search shall be conducted only when properly authorized by a supervisor and only in the event that there is reasonable suspicion that contraband may be ...
  42. [42]
    California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 4030 - Codes - FindLaw
    (i) Persons conducting a strip search or a visual body cavity search shall not touch the breasts, buttocks, or genitalia of the person being searched.Missing: core guidelines
  43. [43]
    Strip search: what are my rights? - Liberty
    An intimate search is a physical examination that involves touching any of your body orifices, other than your mouth. Different rules apply to intimate searches ...
  44. [44]
    Police powers: Strip Searching - Freemans Solicitors
    Aug 29, 2022 · The only exception to this is cases of urgency, where there is risk of serious harm to the child or to others, or where the child has said they ...
  45. [45]
    Cross-Gender Strip Searches Part 2 - Dorf on Law
    Jan 11, 2011 · ... emergency that precludes waiting for a guard of the same gender as the detainee to perform the strip-search. Byrd--the plaintiff detainee in ...<|separator|>
  46. [46]
    Prisons and Jail Standards - PREA Resource Center
    (c) The facility shall document all cross-gender strip searches and cross-gender visual body cavity searches, and shall document all cross-gender pat-down ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Strip-Search Policy
    Aug 26, 2024 · Strip-searches are conducted by two same-gender staff, one possibly a NCO. CCTV is used, and viewing is limited to legitimate purposes. Privacy ...<|separator|>
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Stops, Searches & Arrest Audit June 2024 (FOB and ISB)
    o SSA Overall – Strip/Cavity - Scorecard has an overall compliance score of 93%. The previous audit compliance score was 98%. This sub-audit looked at a ...
  49. [49]
    Prison Contraband: Prevalence, Impacts, and Interdiction Strategies
    Apr 19, 2021 · We found that prisons recovered an average of 34 weapons, 31 cell phones, and 28 controlled substances over the 12-month study period.Missing: rate | Show results with:rate
  50. [50]
    [PDF] Routine Strip Searches to Combat Contraband
    The strip searches conducted uncovered numerous instances of illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and weapons, including on detainees held on. “non-violent ...
  51. [51]
    How often are new arrivals strip-searched at prisons/jails ... - Quora
    Aug 4, 2023 · Everyday, when you return from work or if you want to see your visiting family and friends, when you are sick and you need to see a doctor or ...How often do prisons search cells, and how long can inmates be ...How often do inmates in state prisons get strip searched? - QuoraMore results from www.quora.com
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Prison Contraband Offenses in the Federal System
    Non-U.S. Citizen. 5.9%. Average Age. 38 ... Observed Contraband. Tip. Cell Search. Mail Search. Investigation. Other. Page 35. Weapon Contraband. Surveillance ...
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Improving Correctional Officer Safety: Reducing Inmate Weapons
    Approximately 3% of prisoners are assaulted and injured by other prisoners each year in federal prisons. The probability of similar assaults is almost four ...Missing: recovered | Show results with:recovered
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Custodial Searches - Village of Grafton
    Such searches are necessary to eliminate the introduction of contraband, intoxicants or weapons into the Grafton. Police Department facility. Such items can ...
  55. [55]
    Strip Search After an Arrest - FindLaw
    Sep 21, 2023 · Understand your rights during a strip search after an arrest, including the procedures involved and legal protections available at FindLaw.
  56. [56]
    Strip Search - NJ.gov
    Officer who performs strip search or has body cavity search conducted must report the reason for this search on the record of arrest.Missing: legal | Show results with:legal
  57. [57]
    The "Battle" over Roadside Strip Searches
    Feb 16, 2010 · The "Battle" case involved a roadside strip search where the court ruled that such searches require probable cause plus exigent circumstances, ...Missing: necessity | Show results with:necessity
  58. [58]
    Strip Searches (Visual Body Cavity Search)
    "strip search" means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of the person's clothing so as to permit a visual inspection of the genitals, ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Strip search legal update - Mass.gov
    Aug 5, 2024 · To conduct a strip search, the officer must have “probable cause to believe that the defendant has concealed drugs on his person or his clothing ...
  60. [60]
    Strip Search During Drug Booking Ruled Reasonable - Lexipol
    Oct 29, 2020 · A strip search for drugs during a booking was permissible due to “particularized reasonable suspicion” in this recent case.Missing: necessity | Show results with:necessity
  61. [61]
    When Can Police Conduct a Strip Search? - FindLaw
    Mar 21, 2019 · Police need reasonable suspicion of concealed weapons/drugs for strip searches outside jail. In jail, searches are allowed for safety, even ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] Policy 1013 STRIP SEARCHES AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES
    Feb 9, 2021 · In order to conduct a Strip Search of an arrestee, the member must have Probable Cause that a person is concealing contraband or a dangerous ...Missing: protocol | Show results with:protocol
  63. [63]
    CBP Search Authority | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    A US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer's border search authority is derived from federal statutes and regulations, including 19 CFR 162.6.
  64. [64]
    Searches on and of the body - Tullverket
    Sep 29, 2025 · A strip search is an inspection of the naked body. The customs official shall not touch the naked body. The purpose of conducting a superficial ...
  65. [65]
    Know Your Rights: U.S. Airports and Ports of Entry
    Strip-searches must be done in a private area. Officers can't pull you aside for secondary screening based on race, religion, or ethnicity, but this is ...
  66. [66]
    German teens traveling to US jailed and booted after loosely ...
    Apr 21, 2025 · The teens said they were questioned at Honolulu Airport for hours before they were allegedly subjected to full-body scans and strip searches, ...
  67. [67]
    Teenage German tourists deported from Hawaii over 'suspicious ...
    Apr 21, 2025 · Pohl and Lepère were interrogated in Honolulu International Airport for hours and allegedly subjected to body scans and strip searches ...
  68. [68]
    Military wife says she was detained, deported when trying to visit ...
    May 24, 2025 · At the prison, Saroukossaid she was strip-searched and detained with women who had been convicted of murder and drug offenses. Because she had ...Missing: incident | Show results with:incident
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Today's Reasonable Application of the Border Search Exception
    Apr 8, 2025 · include particularly invasive procedures like strip, body-cavity, and involuntary X-ray searches.104 While the Supreme Court has not ...<|separator|>
  70. [70]
    How effective are customs inspections in preventing smuggling of ...
    Jun 2, 2025 · Are Border/Customs agents allowed to strip search people suspected of smuggling illegal items? Yes. It is considered a personal search. CBP ...Can the officers search your body during a customs check? Does it ...Are Border/Customs agents allowed to strip search people ... - QuoraMore results from www.quora.com
  71. [71]
    Know Your Rights: Student Searches & Investigations
    Because of their extreme intrusion into a student's personal privacy, strip searches require a specific suspicion and supporting facts that indicate there is ...
  72. [72]
    Are Strip Searches and Pat Downs Legal in Schools?
    Strip searches, which involve the complete removal of clothing and exposure of private parts, are generally considered unconstitutional in public schools.
  73. [73]
    Cruel and Unusual Trauma: How Eighth Amendment Principles ...
    By acknowledging the unique vulnerabilities of youth to harm caused by strip searches, courts must emphasize the extreme intrusion to a juvenile's privacy ...
  74. [74]
    Colorado juvenile detention staff violates strip-search policy ...
    Sep 30, 2025 · On average, DYS staff members found contraband in just 10% of the 1,009 strip searches for reasonable suspicion that the ombudsman's office ...
  75. [75]
    [PDF] ISSUE BRIEF - Child Protection Ombudsman of Colorado
    Sep 30, 2025 · Strip Search Procedures and Outcomes in the Division of Youth. Services: Persistent use of strip searches reveal little contraband and lack ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  76. [76]
    [PDF] National--Preventing Strip Searches of Children and Youth
    Mar 13, 2021 · If a child or youth must be strip-searched, the search shall be conducted in a manner that respects the sexual orientation and gender identity ...
  77. [77]
    Safford Unified School District v. Redding - Oyez
    Apr 21, 2009 · The Supreme Court held that Savanna's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers.
  78. [78]
    L.A. County Will Pay $53M To Settle Degrading Strip Search Class ...
    Los Angeles County has agreed to pay $53 million to resolve claims that their county jail violated constitutional rights by conducting degrading strip searches.Missing: unconstitutional | Show results with:unconstitutional
  79. [79]
    Colorado juvenile detention staff violated strip-search policy 1000 ...
    Sep 30, 2025 · Vast majority of youth strip searches reviewed by Child Protection Ombudsman found no contraband. Staff at Colorado's juvenile detention centers ...
  80. [80]
    [PDF] PACE Code C - GOV.UK
    Feb 9, 2017 · The conduct of strip searches. 11. When strip searches are conducted: (a) a police officer carrying out a strip search must be the same sex ...
  81. [81]
    [PDF] Summary Police powers: Strip searching - UK Parliament
    Aug 8, 2022 · conduct strip searches legally are in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of PACE Code A and paragraph 11 of PACE Code C, Annex A. The College of ...
  82. [82]
    Proposed amendments to PACE Codes of Practice A and C: strip ...
    Apr 30, 2024 · We are consulting on ways to strengthen the safeguards for children and vulnerable persons who are subject to searches involving the exposure of intimate parts.
  83. [83]
    Police powers: Strip searching - House of Commons Library
    Jul 20, 2022 · Statutory guidance on the procedures and principles that police must follow to conduct strip searches legally are in PACE Code A and Annex A of ...Missing: regulations | Show results with:regulations
  84. [84]
    NSW police continued to justify festival strip-searches using drug ...
    May 13, 2025 · Class action from more than 3000 group members argues vast majority of strip-searches at music festivals between 2018 and 2022 were ...
  85. [85]
    Encounters with police drug detection dogs at music festivals among ...
    Most (86%) reported some behavioural change to try and avoid detection, most commonly concealing drugs well (57%), followed by one-fifth (20%) who reported ...Missing: contraband | Show results with:contraband
  86. [86]
    Strip-searches at music festivals: What are the rules in NSW, explained
    Oct 7, 2025 · The ruling has clarified that the law dictates that strip-searches can only be conducted in exceptional circumstances. "You actually have to ...
  87. [87]
    Illegal Strip Searches take place at all-ages music festival
    The officers subsequently unlocked and searched Mikey's phone. The police officer then informed Mikey they would strip search him. In a private area, they ...
  88. [88]
    New report proves strip searches don't work — Users News (UN)
    86.5% or almost 9 out of ...Missing: contraband overdoses
  89. [89]
    Police presence at music festivals can lead to 'panic overdoses' of ...
    Nov 18, 2021 · Police presence at music festivals leads some people to “panic overdose” in their attempt to avoid getting caught, an Australian study has found.Missing: outcomes contraband
  90. [90]
    First national study into drug related deaths at music festivals
    Jan 16, 2024 · Following a 2019 inquest into six music festival deaths, the NSW Coroner found compelling evidence to discontinue the use of drug detection dogs ...Missing: outcomes contraband
  91. [91]
    NSW urged to stop strip-searches of young people after court ruling ...
    Oct 1, 2025 · Supreme court rules police suspicion that a person is in possession of a prohibited drug 'is not sufficient to conduct a strip-search'.
  92. [92]
    NSW government loses music festival strip search case as woman ...
    Sep 30, 2025 · A Sydney woman subjected to an unlawful strip search at a music festival has been awarded $93000 in damages, in a judgement that could see ...Missing: 2020 | Show results with:2020<|separator|>
  93. [93]
    NSW Police lost a huge strip search lawsuit. It has ... - UNSW Sydney
    Oct 2, 2025 · The class action was brought by lead plaintiff Raya Meredith on behalf of all people unlawfully strip searched at music festivals between July ...Missing: Victoria post-
  94. [94]
    Court rules police strip search power abused on 'industrial level'
    Oct 1, 2025 · The NSW Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment that ultimately invalidates the systemic strip search practices of NSW Police at ...
  95. [95]
    R. v. Golden - SCC Cases - Décisions de la CSC
    The common law rule ensures that such searches are only carried out where the police establish reasonable and probable grounds for a strip search for the ...
  96. [96]
    [PDF] Summary of Ontario Jurisprudence Involving Strip Searches Post ...
    Post-R. v. Golden, 89 Ontario cases found strip searches violated charter rights. Unjustified searches violate section 8, potentially leading to evidence ...
  97. [97]
    https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-44.6/section-48.html
  98. [98]
    Commissioner's directive 566-7: Searching of Offenders - Canada.ca
    Directive 566-7 aims to prevent contraband using least restrictive measures, including frisk, body scan, and strip searches, and applies to all institutions.Missing: Code | Show results with:Code
  99. [99]
    Regulations Amending the Corrections and Conditional Release ...
    Oct 9, 2024 · A strip search may be conducted when a staff member has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate, staff or visitor is carrying contraband or ...Missing: Code | Show results with:Code<|separator|>
  100. [100]
    Federal Strip Search Class Action - CCLA
    The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) limits suspicionless strip searches “to situations in which the inmate has been in a place where there was a ...
  101. [101]
    https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Searches_at_an_International_Border
  102. [102]
    Searches by Canadian Border Services Officers
    The Supreme Court has also said in a case that the Customs Act allows a customs officer to search not only on the surface of the traveller's body for prohibited ...
  103. [103]
    Review of the RCMP's Policies and Procedures Regarding Strip ...
    Dec 3, 2020 · The RCMP's national strip search policy is unclear and inadequate, with divisional policies often inadequate or inappropriate. There are also ...
  104. [104]
    [PDF] GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON THE NELSON MANDELA RULES
    ... Mandela Rules suggest that in such instances body cavity searches ... The UN Special Rapporteur on torture has called upon states not to perform strip searches.
  105. [105]
    [PDF] Report to the German Government on the visit to Germany carried ...
    Apr 4, 2024 · Further, returnees should not be required to remove all their clothes at the same time when strip searches are carried out prior to the return ...
  106. [106]
    Germany says full-body airport scanner "nonsense" | Reuters
    Oct 24, 2008 · Germany will not participate in EU proposals for airports to use full-body scanner security checks, which have raised privacy issues, ...
  107. [107]
    Prisons Regulations - Singapore Statutes Online
    (2) Any visitor to a prisoner may be searched by a prison officer or an authorised auxiliary police officer, and the search —. (a), must not take place in the ...Missing: customs | Show results with:customs
  108. [108]
    South African Department of Correctional Services orders 14 ...
    The scanners will be offered for both inmates and visitors, which avoid the use of intrusive strip searches. Smuggling into prisons is a worldwide problem ...
  109. [109]
    [PDF] Trafficking in persons in and from Africa; a global responsibility
    Dec 10, 2024 · It is important to keep in mind that smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons are distinct crimes.b The UNODC research presented below ...Missing: strip | Show results with:strip
  110. [110]
    [PDF] The Carceral Automaton: Digital Prisons and Technologies of ...
    In Japan, drug detection is no longer conducted by degrading physical strip-searching; instead, a '“sniffer” of “puffer” machine', akin to airport technology ...<|separator|>
  111. [111]
    Strip searches in prison are traumatising breaches of human rights ...
    Feb 17, 2022 · International law dictates that, given the harmful impact of strip searches, alternatives such as x-ray scanners should instead be used in ...
  112. [112]
    How Millimeter Wave Scanners Work - Science | HowStuffWorks
    Jun 9, 2023 · All of the scanners do the same thing: detect metallic and nonmetallic threats, including weapons, explosives and other objects, concealed under layers of ...
  113. [113]
    16 jails to receive X-ray scanners - GOV.UK
    Jan 24, 2020 · Innovative new X-ray body scanners, developed specifically for the Prison Service, will produce instant images from inside the human body and can reveal ...
  114. [114]
    New search technologies to be used in prisons - Police Professional
    Subject to securing, installing and training staff on the use of the millimetre wave body scanners, the pilot in Magilligan and Hydebank Wood is anticipated ...
  115. [115]
    More prisons to get 'game changing' X-ray body scanners - BBC
    Jan 23, 2020 · Jails in Birmingham, Wandsworth, Liverpool, Bedford and Exeter are among the 16 prisons to get the new scanners. Lack of scanner 'inexplicable'.
  116. [116]
    Thousands of prison smuggling attempts thwarted - GOV.UK
    Dec 4, 2023 · New figures reveal more than 46,900 suspect items have been identified by the 75 high-tech X-ray body scanners installed in all closed adult ...
  117. [117]
    [PDF] Security Analysis of a Full-Body Scanner - USENIX
    Aug 20, 2014 · The full-body scanner has weak protection against adaptive adversaries, allowing concealment of knives, guns, and explosives. It is vulnerable ...
  118. [118]
    Artificial intelligence against prison threats: A disruptive innovation ...
    May 30, 2025 · Conventional visual inspections or millimeter-wave scanners are ineffective in such cases. This is where transmission X-ray body scanners ...
  119. [119]
    DOC to Explore Full Body Scanners Under Bill Headed to ...
    May 30, 2023 · A study commissioned by the state legislature in Washington found that a body scanner cost roughly $135,000 to purchase and around $25,000 to ...
  120. [120]
    [PDF] Prison Security Investment Programme: X-ray Body Scanners
    Dec 1, 2023 · 51 sites were completed by March 2021 and a further 23 sites were completed by October 2021. Before SIP there were 18 XRBS in the prison estate.
  121. [121]
    [PDF] Research Brief - Corrective Services NSW
    “Body scanners don't negate the need for strip searches. … If it's in the clothing, they're going to have to reveal at some point during a strip search, so ...
  122. [122]
    [PDF] Report summary - Stripped of our dignity
    Strip searches are intended to prevent the entry of drugs ... Prisons that have reduced the use of strip searches have not experienced an increase in contraband.
  123. [123]
    [PDF] The Scope, Severity, and Interdiction of Contraband Cell Phones in ...
    Respondents identified cell phones as one of the most common contraband items recovered in prisons. (second only to weapons), with a reported average of 31 cell ...Missing: rates | Show results with:rates
  124. [124]
    [PDF] Contraband and Interdiction Strategies in Correctional Facilities
    This brief elaborates on the contraband-related challenges and strategies correctional administrators have employed to prevent, detect, and remove contraband ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
  125. [125]
    [PDF] Perceptions of Correctional Practitioners on Contraband Prevention ...
    This study explores the perceptions of 10 Maryland correctional practitioners to devise a strategy to prevent contraband flow into state prisons.
  126. [126]
    [PDF] Detecting and Managing Drug Contraband - Office of Justice Programs
    May 5, 2021 · Document Title: Detecting and Managing Drug Contraband: An Overview of Technologies for Managing. Entry of Drug Contraband and Detecting.
  127. [127]
    Prison Contraband: Prevalence, Impacts, and Interdiction Strategies
    Apr 1, 2021 · Sexual Assault Awareness · Tribal Justice · Victims of Crime. Training ... Using descriptive analyses of the 2018 National Survey of Correctional ...
  128. [128]
    Correlates of Contraband in US Prisons - Urban Institute
    Oct 2, 2024 · Contraband in correctional facilities can create challenges for the safety of incarcerated people, staff, and the general public.
  129. [129]
    [PDF] Ceremonies of Degradation¹: Strip-Searching in Women's Prisons
    Women in prison already live in a hyper-regulated reality, where their every move is under strict control by correctional officers.⁵ For these women, strip- ...
  130. [130]
    Trauma-informed juvenile justice systems: A systematic review of ...
    An estimated 70–90% of youth offenders have experienced one or more types of trauma, including high rates of physical or sexual abuse, witnessing domestic ...
  131. [131]
    An Examination of Traumatic Experiences and Posttraumatic Stress ...
    Research has found nearly all prisoners have experienced a traumatic event in their life and a high proportion suffer from PTSD. Illinois Criminal Justice ...
  132. [132]
    [PDF] inmate grievance program
    There were 29 Code 25.1 (Strip Search) and 25.2 (Strip Frisk) grievances in 2012, a decrease from the 39 in 2011. This compares to 29 in 2010, 31 in 2009, 31 in.<|separator|>
  133. [133]
    [PDF] Body searches in detention - ICRC
    Most police forces and prison services specify that all other measures must be employed first. In most cases, a less intrusive procedure (such as a strip search) ...Missing: protocol | Show results with:protocol
  134. [134]
    [PDF] Addressing Trauma: Eliminating Strip Searches - Juvenile Law Center
    A strip search is a “search that requires a person to remove or arrange some clothing so as to permit a visual inspection of the person's breasts, buttocks,.
  135. [135]
    Strip searches maximize prison security - The Saratoga Falcon
    The effectiveness of jails and prisons is significantly diminished when prisoners have access to contraband; strip searches allow law-enforcement officials to ...
  136. [136]
    [PDF] The Toronto Police Service Releases Findings from Race-Based ...
    Jun 15, 2022 · There were differences by race in strip search rates with Black, Indigenous and ... TPS Data, Peer Reviewed. The Service's Race-Based Data ...
  137. [137]
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504630.2025.2524177
  138. [138]
    One in Five: Disparities in Crime and Policing - The Sentencing Project
    Nov 2, 2023 · Stop Outcomes: Searches, Arrests, and Police Violence​​ These patterns of 'contraband hit rates' have been found in jurisdictions across the ...Missing: strip | Show results with:strip
  139. [139]
    Rethinking the role of race in crime and police violence | Brookings
    Jun 27, 2024 · Furthermore, more recent data indicates that 53% of those arrested for violent crimes were white, while 25% were Black and 14% were Hispanic.
  140. [140]
    [PDF] Strip Searching in the Age of Colorblind Racism
    Similarly, Daphne Ha's assertion that “research shows that giving po- lice officers discretion to conduct strip searches may increase the chance of racial, ...
  141. [141]
    Report reveals "widespread failure" in protecting children in strip ...
    Aug 19, 2024 · LONDON, Aug. 19 (Xinhua) -- Almost one in 25 strip searches conducted on children in England and Wales over the past five and a half years ...
  142. [142]
    CT House passes bill to study, not limit, prison strip searches
    May 30, 2023 · House lawmakers on Tuesday passed a watered-down version of a bill that initially sought to end routine strip searches in Connecticut's prisons and jails.
  143. [143]
    Connecticut Lawmakers Punt on Limiting Prison Strip Searches
    Nov 15, 2023 · As proposed, SB 1196 would have raised the standards for guards to perform strip searches on those incarcerated – from “reasonable suspicion” to ...Missing: reforms | Show results with:reforms
  144. [144]
    CT funds body scanners to replace strip searches in some prisons
    Aug 1, 2025 · The funding will pay for four body scanners as part of a pilot program with the aim of ending strip searches in the state's prisons.
  145. [145]
    NSW Police lost a huge strip search lawsuit. It has national ...
    Oct 1, 2025 · This week, the Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered a landmark judgment against the NSW Police Force for unlawful strip searches.Missing: Victoria post-
  146. [146]
    [PDF] Proposed amendments to PACE Codes of Practice A and C
    These include ensuring the presence of an appropriate adult during searches, obtaining informed consent from both the parent/guardian and a child deemed.
  147. [147]
    [PDF] Reforming Strip Search Protocols in Prisons: Challenges, Standards ...
    Nov 9, 2024 · Abstract: In prisons, the practice of strip searches is a contentious method employed to uncover contraband and maintain safety.<|separator|>
  148. [148]
    [PDF] Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review Child Q March 2022
    Mar 14, 2022 · 1.1 In 2020, Child Q, a Black female child of secondary school age, was strip searched by female police officers from the Metropolitan ...
  149. [149]
    Gross misconduct proven for two Met officers in strip search of Child ...
    Jun 26, 2025 · Update - After announcing the findings, the police disciplinary panel has decided that PC Linge and PC Szmydynski will be dismissed without ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  150. [150]
    Thousands of children strip-searched by police in England and ...
    Apr 21, 2024 · More than 60 under-18s a week were subjected to intrusive searches, some of them as young as 10.
  151. [151]
    Data for custody detentions and related strip searches from April ...
    I wish to examine post-arrest strip search rates by person and offence characteristics and custody suite.
  152. [152]
    Strip-searching as abjectification: Racism and sexual violence in ...
    Mar 24, 2024 · This article examines police strip-searching practices in the UK. Drawing on newly acquired Freedom of Information data, publicly available ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  153. [153]
    The Truth About Police Strip Searches in England | Defence Lawyers
    In 2019, the BBC reported that in a 12-month period the Metropolitan Police had strip-searched over 10,000 detainees, 16% of the total number of detainees.
  154. [154]
    2001 SCC 83 (CanLII) | R. v. Golden
    Strip searches should generally only be conducted at the police station except where there are exigent circumstances requiring that the detainee be searched ...
  155. [155]
    [PDF] Strip Searches in Canada and the Constitutional Right to be Free ...
    As will be seen, my review of trial court decisions in this column raises serious concerns as to whether Canadian police are conducting improper strip searches ...
  156. [156]
    Section 8 – Search and seizure - Department of Justice Canada
    Jul 14, 2025 · Section 8 protects people, not places, against unjustified intrusions on their privacy interests (Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145 at page 159)