A published opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals provides a glimpse into a deeply problematic practice: On a Friday afternoon, 12-year-old J.B. went to the state police barracks with his parents upon request of a police officer following an incident in his neighborhood three weeks prior. At the station, police processed J.B. on a petition charging him and then transported him to a detention center. He went through the intake process at the detention center and was taken to be strip-searched. An officer observed him remove his clothing. J.B. was asked to turn around, drop his pants and underwear, bend over, spread his buttocks, and cough. He remained unclothed for 90 seconds. J.B. spent the weekend in detention. On Monday morning, J.B. appeared for the first time before a judge in juvenile court who determined his detention was unnecessary and released him to his parents. But the harmful invasion of his privacy couldn’t be undone, and J.B.’s case is not unique.
Strip searches of children occur in schools, in juvenile detention centers, by investigators of child abuse, in immigration detention centers, and by correctional staff when children visit incarcerated family members. These searches require a child to remove or arrange their clothing to permit an adult stranger to conduct a visual inspection of ordinarily covered areas, like the breasts, buttocks, and genitalia. Sometimes the searches can even include more physically invasive techniques, like the inspection of the child’s mouth or nose or searches of other body cavities.
Strip searches may be uniquely damaging to adolescents. With the onset of puberty, teenagers begin to view their bodies critically and compare them to those of their peers and their personal ideals, making adolescents particularly vulnerable to embarrassment. Accordingly, teenagers have a heightened need for personal privacy. For an adolescent, privacy is an important marker of independence and integral to how they develop and differentiate themselves from their peers. If the child’s privacy is threatened, the resulting stress can seriously undermine the child’s self-esteem.
Children—especially those with histories of sexual abuse—may experience a strip search as a form of state-ordered sexual abuse. Children, even at very early ages, understand the concept that certain parts of their bodies are private. Child abuse education programs highlight this understanding, telling children that nobody should look at or touch their private parts. Thus, a strip search—being compelled to expose one’s private parts to an adult stranger who is obviously not a medical practitioner—is offensive to the child’s natural instincts and education.
Further research has shown that strip searches, performed even as intended, can cause children to experience anxiety, depression, loss of concentration, sleep disturbances, difficulty performing in school, phobic reactions, shame, guilt, and other lasting emotional scars. Strip searches can also retraumatize children who are survivors of sexual abuse. Studies show that a large percentage of young girls in the juvenile justice system are sexual abuse survivors. These negative consequences of strip searches can last for years. In the most egregious cases, staff members may use strip searches to intentionally abuse children, creating an even greater risk of harm.
The trauma of strip searches may even interfere with positive brain development. Trauma during adolescence may have a particularly significant effect on the development of the frontal lobe, the area in the brain that is responsible for thoughtful decision-making and measured responses, and the harm may impact the individual into adulthood.
Legal Precedent
A minority of states have laws governing when and how strip searches can be performed on children, leaving discretion largely to agencies and facilities to create their own policies and contractual provisions. Court precedent does, however, create some parameters.
School Searches
The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that strip searches in a school setting are highly suspect. In Safford v. Redding, the Court held unconstitutional the search of a 13-year-old girl strip-searched by school officials on suspicion that she was carrying over-the-counter ibuprofen. The Court emphasized the severe intrusion of the strip search as compared with the governmental need at hand. Although Safford set forth a standard requiring reasonable suspicion prior to conducting a school-based strip search, school officials often enjoy qualified immunity and therefore escape liability for unconstitutional searches.