ACLU of Iowa Vows to Fight to Protect Iowa Statutory Law In Face of “Truly Appalling” U.S. Supreme Court Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling in the case involving a man strip searched after being arrested for failure to pay a fine. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that those arrested for even minor traffic violations may be strip searched before being admitted to jail–even if the government has no reason whatsoever to suspect they are concealing a weapon or contraband. ACLU of Iowa Executive Director points out that fortunately, Iowa has a law that forbids such strip searches of people brought in for relatively minor infractions, and said his organization will fight any attempts to alter that law in the aftermath of Monday’s decision. Monday’s decision, Albert Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington , “is a shocking decision that is truly appalling in its endorsement of the practice of strip searching all arrestees for even the most minor of offenses,” Stone said. “It will enable police and jail personnel in most states to search the body cavities of protesters taken into custody for simple trespass—a practice which has profound and grave implications for freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU of Iowa strongly condemns this ruling as more typical to totalitarian regimes like China, Syria and North Korea—where police state forces routinely use such tactics to humiliate political dissenters after arrest.” Iowa Code Section 804.30, a state statute last amended by the Iowa Legislature in 1981, strictly forbids strip searches of persons brought into custody for routine traffic infractions (“scheduled violations”) or simple misdemeanors “unless there is probable cause to believe the person is concealing a weapon or contraband.” The law also requires a judicial warrant for searches of “body cavities other than mouth, ears, or nose.” The Supreme Court decision yesterday simply gave permission to prisons to perform such searches, if they wish. However, since Iowa law specifically prohibits such invasive searches, those arrested in Iowa in these types of incidents could not be strip searched without probable cause. “Thankfully, Iowans do not live in a totalitarian regime, but in a democracy,” Stone said. “In fact, Iowa is one of only ten states with this kind of statutory protection for its citizens. The people of Iowa should be grateful that their representatives more than 30 years ago wisely enacted this law to protect them from the kind of humiliating abuses the Florence decision invites. The ACLU of Iowa and its members support existing Iowa law protecting it citizens from this level of unnecessary and invasive practice. We wil work tirelessly to oppose any attempt to take away Iowans’ existing rights.” Link to Iowa Code Section 804.30: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IC/LINC/Section.804.30.pdf Link to Florence v. County of Burlington: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florence-v-board-of-chosen-fr… Link to ACLU amicus brief, which mentions Iowa Code Section 804.30 on page 10: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/florence_v._board_10-945_tsac_american_…

Here is the original post:
ACLU of Iowa Vows to Fight to Protect Iowa Statutory Law In Face of “Truly Appalling” U.S. Supreme Court Decision

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.