Summary of Argument

This case involves a question of exceptional importance regarding the constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of the Minnehaha County Juvenile Detention Center’s (JDC) policy to strip-search juveniles arrested on minor violations. The panel’s decision in this case sets a disturbing precedent that departs from controlling case law and widely accepted psychological research. Purportedly based on the longstanding child-protective principles of parens patriae and in loco parentis, the decision flips these principles on their heads to justify the unwarranted infliction of potentially serious trauma to already vulnerable youth. These principles, centuries old and intended to shield children from harm, are wielded here as a sword to penetrate the most personal zone of privacy—the clothing covering one’s body—under circumstances where adults could not be so violated. Indeed, the panel’s decision conflicts with the decisions of this Court and virtually every other circuit that strip-searches of adults in similar circumstances are unconstitutional. In so distorting or misapprehending Supreme Court precedent concerning parens patriae and in loco parentis as well as Fourth Amendment case law concerning adults, the panel denies youth critical Fourth Amendment protections—in the guise of protecting them from harm.

Summary of Argument

This case examines the constitutionality of the Minnehaha County Juvenile Detention Center's (JDC) policy to strip-search juveniles arrested for minor offenses under the Fourth Amendment. The panel's ruling establishes a problematic precedent that contradicts established case law and widely recognized psychological research. The ruling relies on the principles of parens patriae and in loco parentis to justify the potential for inflicting significant trauma on vulnerable youth. This application of these principles, traditionally intended to protect children from harm, is misconstrued to justify the invasion of the most intimate zone of privacy—one's body—under circumstances that would not be permissible for adults. This decision contradicts the rulings of the Supreme Court and nearly every other circuit court, which have deemed strip searches of adults in comparable situations unconstitutional. By misinterpreting Supreme Court precedent regarding parens patriae and in loco parentis and Fourth Amendment case law concerning adults, the panel denies juveniles crucial Fourth Amendment safeguards under the pretext of protecting them from harm.

Summary of Argument

This case explores the constitutionality of a policy implemented by the Minnehaha County Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) that subjects juveniles arrested for minor offenses to strip searches. The panel's decision in this case establishes a troubling precedent that contradicts established legal precedents and widely accepted psychological research. The decision relies on the historical legal principles of parens patriae and in loco parentis, which are traditionally meant to protect children from harm. However, the decision inverts these principles, using them to justify potentially traumatic strip searches of vulnerable youth, despite the fact that such searches would be deemed unconstitutional for adults in similar situations. This decision conflicts with established precedent within the Supreme Court and other circuit courts, which have consistently ruled that strip searches of adults in similar situations violate the Fourth Amendment. By misinterpreting the scope of parens patriae, in loco parentis, and the Fourth Amendment, the panel undermines the crucial Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed to youth.

Summary of Argument

This case examines whether the Minnehaha County Juvenile Detention Center's policy of strip-searching juveniles for minor offenses violates the Fourth Amendment. The panel's ruling in this case establishes a worrying precedent, diverging from existing legal standards and widely accepted psychological research. The decision, supposedly based on the long-held child-protective principles of parens patriae and in loco parentis, twists these principles to justify potentially harmful trauma inflicted on vulnerable youth. These principles, centuries old and meant to shield children from harm, are used here to justify invading the most private aspect of a person – their clothing – under circumstances where adults would not be subjected to such treatment. The panel's decision contradicts Supreme Court rulings and nearly every other circuit court that have deemed strip-searches of adults in similar situations unconstitutional. By misinterpreting Supreme Court precedent on parens patriae, in loco parentis, and Fourth Amendment case law concerning adults, the panel denies youth essential Fourth Amendment protections under the guise of safeguarding them from harm.

Summary of Argument

This case is about whether it's okay for the Minnehaha County Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) to make kids and teens arrested for small things take off all their clothes during strip searches. The court said it's okay, but that's wrong. The court used old rules that are supposed to protect kids, but it used them in a way that hurts kids instead. These rules are about taking care of kids, but the court is using them to look inside kids' clothes without a good reason. That's like looking inside adults' clothes without a good reason, which is not allowed. The court is ignoring important laws about protecting people's privacy.