Summary of Argument

The district court in this case incorrectly held that the suspicionless body cavity search of a 12-year-old girl detained for a minor offense is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Although the Supreme Court approved such searches for adult detainees in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012), the Court has consistently recognized that children cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults, and that their developmental characteristics must be considered when assessing the scope and breadth of their constitutional rights. The district court failed to follow that well-established principle, and instead mechanically applied the Florence standard for strip searches of adults in jail to assess the reasonableness of strip searches of children in juvenile detention. This wholesale adoption of an adult standard to determine the Fourth Amendment rights of children fails to account for T.M.’s youthfulness, as required by Supreme Court precedent, and impermissibly equates juvenile detention with adult jail.

Rather than expanding the Florence holding to cover children, the district court should have simply engaged in the standard Fourth Amendment analysis, balancing the need for the search against the invasion of privacy that the search entails. Strip searches of children are an exceptional invasion of privacy that can cause lasting harm. This intrusion cannot be justified by the cited governmental interests. Although juvenile detention facilities have legitimate safety and security interests, the suspicionless body cavity search of a child goes far beyond the scope necessary to protect those interests, and thus violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.

Summary of Argument

The district court in this case erroneously concluded that the suspicionless body cavity search of a 12-year-old girl, detained for a minor offense, constitutes a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Although the Supreme Court found such searches permissible for adult detainees in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Court has consistently affirmed that children are not merely miniature adults. Their developmental characteristics necessitate distinct considerations regarding the scope of their constitutional entitlements. The district court departed from this established jurisprudential principle by mechanically applying the Florence standard, designed for strip searches of adults in jail, to assess the reasonableness of strip searches involving children in juvenile detention. This unqualified adoption of an adult-centric standard for determining children's Fourth Amendment rights fails to adequately consider T.M.’s minority, a requirement articulated in Supreme Court jurisprudence, and erroneously equates juvenile detention with adult correctional facilities.

Instead of extending the Florence precedent to encompass minors, the district court ought to have conducted the customary Fourth Amendment analysis, weighing the governmental interest in conducting the search against the resultant intrusion upon individual privacy. The strip search of a minor constitutes a profound infringement upon privacy, possessing the potential for enduring psychological repercussions. This level of intrusion cannot be substantively justified by the articulated governmental interests. While juvenile detention facilities possess valid interests in maintaining safety and security, the suspicionless body cavity search of a child markedly exceeds the scope demonstrably necessary to safeguard these interests, thereby contravening the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches.

Summary of Argument

The district court in this case incorrectly decided that a body cavity search of a 12-year-old girl, held for a minor offense and conducted without any specific suspicion, was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. While the Supreme Court permitted such searches for adult detainees in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Court has consistently held that children are not simply smaller versions of adults. Their unique developmental stages must be considered when determining the extent of their constitutional rights. The district court failed to follow this established principle. Instead, it directly applied the Florence standard for adult strip searches in jails to evaluate strip searches of children in juvenile detention. This complete use of an adult standard for children's Fourth Amendment rights ignores T.M.'s young age, as Supreme Court rulings require, and incorrectly treats juvenile detention the same as adult jail.

Rather than extending the Florence ruling to children, the district court should have used the usual Fourth Amendment process. This involves weighing the government's need for the search against how much it invades a person's privacy. Strip searches of children are an extreme invasion of privacy that can cause long-term harm. The government's stated interests do not justify this invasion. While juvenile detention centers have valid interests in safety and security, a body cavity search of a child without suspicion goes much further than what is needed to protect these interests. Therefore, it breaks the Fourth Amendment's rule against unreasonable searches.

Summary of Argument

The lower court made a mistake in deciding that searching a 12-year-old girl's body without any specific reason, after she was held for a minor offense, was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court did approve such searches for adults held in jail in an earlier decision. However, the Court has also consistently recognized that children are not just small adults. Their age and development must be considered when looking at their constitutional rights. The lower court failed to follow this important rule. Instead, it simply applied the same rules for strip searches of adults in jail to assess strip searches of children in juvenile detention. This way of adopting an adult standard to decide the constitutional rights of children does not account for the child's age, as required by past Supreme Court decisions, and wrongly treats juvenile detention like adult jail.

Instead of extending the Supreme Court's ruling to cover children, the lower court should have used the standard Fourth Amendment analysis. This analysis involves weighing the need for the search against how much it invades a person's privacy. Strip searches of children are a significant invasion of privacy that can cause long-lasting harm. The government's stated reasons cannot justify this level of intrusion. While juvenile detention centers do have valid interests in safety and security, searching a child's body without any specific reason goes far beyond what is needed to protect these interests. Therefore, it violates the Fourth Amendment's rule against unreasonable searches.

Summary of Argument

The court made a mistake in this case. It said that searching a 12-year-old girl's body without a reason was fair under the law. This search happened when the girl was held for a small problem. A high court once said that such searches were okay for adults in jail. But the high court has always said that children are not just small adults. Their age and how they grow must be thought about when deciding their rights. The court in this case did not follow this rule. It just used the adult search rule for children in youth detention. This was wrong. It did not think about how young the girl (T.M.) was. It also wrongly treated youth detention like adult jail.

Instead of doing this, the court should have used the normal legal test. This test weighs why a search is needed against how much it invades a person's private space. Searching a child's body is a very big invasion of privacy. It can cause harm that lasts a long time. The reasons the government gave for the search do not make it okay. Youth detention places need to be safe. But searching a child's body without a good reason goes too far. It breaks the law that says searches must be fair.