Hubbry Logo
Strip searchStrip searchMain
Open search
Strip search
Community hub
Strip search
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Strip search
Strip search
Strip search
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
"The Correct Procedure for a Visual Search" – A 1990 video produced by the Federal Bureau of Prisons

A strip search is a practice of searching a person for weapons or other contraband suspected of being hidden on their body or inside their clothing, and not found by performing a frisk search, but by requiring the person to remove some or all clothing. The search may involve an official performing an intimate person search and inspecting their personal effects and body cavities (mouth, vagina, rectum, etc.). A strip search is more intrusive than a frisk and requires legal authority. Regulations covering strip searches vary considerably and may be mandatory in some situations or discretionary in others.

A strip search of a suspect of a recent violent crime may additionally be useful for finding blood of the victim, signs of a fight, etc.

Legality of strip searches

[edit]

In North America, civil lawsuits, as well as criminal code charges against strip searches have usually been successful when a person is strip searched by someone of the opposite sex, especially in cases where a woman has been strip searched by a male guard or guards. The more disputed legal cases have often involved the presence of people of the other gender during a strip search. Some of these cases have been less successful because of the legal technicality of who was actually performing the strip search, i.e. if more than one guard is present, the search is often (legally) said to be performed by the person or people giving the orders or instructions to the person or people being searched.

Another legal issue is that of blanket strip searches, such as in jails where detainees are routinely strip searched prior to conviction of a crime. Courts have often held that blanket strip searches are acceptable only for convicted persons. For detainees pending trial, there must be a reasonable suspicion that the detainee is in possession of weapons or other contraband before a strip search can be conducted. The same often holds true for other situations such as airport security personnel and customs officers, but the dispute often hinges on what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

Incidental strip searches

[edit]

In order to bypass the legal reasonable suspicion requirement, and because strip searches can be humiliating, the search is often made less overt, as part of an intake process, that includes a mandatory shower. For example, most prisons also include a mandatory shower along with a change of clothes. The shower serves to make the strip search less blatant as well as providing the additional benefit of removing contamination (in addition to removing weapons or other contraband). Many shelters require new arrivals to hand over all their clothing for a wash, as well as requiring them to have a shower. These rules also enable a discreet check for weapons or other contraband, with less legal implications, being less objectionable because the requirement is applied to everyone entering a facility. It is less offensive to clients than requiring them to undergo an overt strip search.

Security procedures at facilities that mine and process gold, silver, copper, and other high-value minerals may constitute an incidental strip search. At the end of the workday, miners must remove all work clothes before entering a shower facility and then exit nude through a metal detector to a separate changing room where street clothes are stored.

The courts have often held that requiring a person to have a shower as a condition of entry into a space (such as a prison, shelter, or the like) does not, in itself, constitute a strip search, even if the shower and surrounding space are so constructed as to afford visibility of the unclothed body by guards during the showering process.[citation needed]

Hospitals often also have a mandatory shower, during lockdown, when mass decontamination is called for. Paul Rega, M.D., FACEP has specifically identified mass decontamination as providing the added benefit of checking for weapons or other contraband, as well as searching for clues among the clothes of persons found at a terrorist attack crime scene where it is recognized that the perpetrator(s) could be among the persons detained for decontamination.[1]

Procedure of strip searches

[edit]

Partial strip searches are common at airports, for airport security, which often consists of:

  • removal of shoes (and sometimes socks)
  • removal of coat and jacket
  • removal of belt;
  • untucking of shirt.

If there is reason to suspect hidden objects, the person is then taken to a private room, which may consist of:

  • removal of shirt
  • removal of trousers
  • removal of underwear and bra

Electronic strip searches

[edit]
Main article: Full body scanner

Backscatter X-ray machines, Millimeter wave scanners, T-ray scans, and other modern technology provide the ability to see through clothing, to achieve a similar result to an actual strip search.

Notable incidents

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

New South Wales

[edit]
Main article: New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal
Police and a drug detection dog at the entrance of the Defqon music festival in Sydney in 2017

Following the introduction of a controversial law in 2001, New South Wales Police were given the power to deploy drug detection dogs at major public events such as music festivals, inside licensed premises (venues that serve alcohol) and at stations across the Sydney Trains network.[2][3]: 1 

In late 2014, reports were first published alleging that NSW Police were routinely using drug detection dog indications as a justification for conducting invasive strip searches, particularly at major events such as music festivals.[4][5] At these events, officers have employed the use of structures such as ticket booths,[6][7]: 9 [8][9] tents,[7]: 12 [10]: 9 [11] makeshift partitions[12][13][14]: 7  and police vans[15][16] to strip search attendees. In some cases, it was alleged that these structures did not offer adequate privacy to individuals being searched, leaving them exposed to other festivalgoers or officers outside.[17][18][19] After stripping partially or completely naked, festival patrons have been asked to do things such as lift their breasts or genitals,[13][8] bend over,[20][16][7]: 4 [21] spread their buttocks apart[22][23] or squat and cough.[24][25][26][27] Similar searches have reportedly been conducted during drug detection dog operations at train stations and licensed venues as well.[28][29]

In October 2018, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission launched a formal investigation into the use of strip searches by NSW Police. In a final report handed down in December 2020, the Commission found that "a recurrent issue throughout the inquiry was the failure of officers to comply with, or at least to properly account for their compliance with, the legal thresholds for conducting a strip search".[30]: ii  In several cases investigated by the Commission, it was found that officers had acted unlawfully.[30]: 3  The commission also noted that there had been a "significant increase" in the "number and proportion" of strip searches carried out following drug detection dog indications in the five years between 2014 and 2019.[30]: 71 

In July 2022, a class action was filed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on behalf of patrons strip searched at music festivals by NSW Police from July 2016 onwards. Head plaintiff for the class action is a then 27-year-old woman who was allegedly strip searched at the Splendour in the Grass music festival in 2018.[31] A trial for the class action is expected to be held in mid-2025.[32]

Victoria

[edit]
Main article: Tasty nightclub raid

In the early hours of 7 August 1994, approximately 40 officers from Victoria Police took part in a raid at the Tasty nightclub in Melbourne, a popular venue for LGBT partygoers. Over the course of seven hours, all 463 staff and patrons inside the venue were detained and strip searched, supposedly under the auspices of finding illicit drugs. A class action subsequently launched against Victoria Police was finalised in 1996, with more than 200 patrons who were present at time each being awarded $10,000 in damages.[33] In 2014, Victoria Police formally apologised for the Tasty nightclub raid.[34]

Canada

[edit]

As part of policing operations for the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto, a makeshift detention centre was setup by Toronto Police at a disused film studio on Eastern Avenue. Over the course of the event, approximately 900 protestors were detained at the facility, where they were subjected poor conditions and mistreatment by police.[35][36]

While being held at the Eastern Avenue detention centre, some protesters were strip searched, with officers using cubicles described as “large plywood cells without roofs” to conduct these searches. In 2014, footage obtained by Vice showed that CCTV cameras could see into these cubicles, leading to fears that protestors detained at the facility were filmed while strip searches were taking place. When asked by Vice, Toronto Police did not respond to questions about the matter and it’s not clear if any such footage exists.[37] In August 2020, the Toronto Police Services Board agreed to pay $16.5 million dollars to settle a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of around 1100 people who were arrested during the 2010 G20 protests, including some who were detained at the Eastern Avenue detention centre.[38]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In 2014, it was reported that more than 4,600 children had been strip-searched by the Metropolitan Police in the preceding five years, with the youngest being ten years old. This was out of a total of 134,000 strip-searched. A charity described the number of younger children searched in this way as being "disturbing".[39] In 2022, it was reported that 650 children (between 10 and 17 years old) had been strip-searched by the same agency between 2018 and 2020. 58% of these children were described as black by the arresting officer; in 2018, this rose to 75%.[40] 70% of children who were strip-searched without an appropriate adult present – contrary to official Metropolitan Police guidance – were black boys.[41]

In January 2022, the Metropolitan Police formally apologised to Dr Koshka Duff, an academic who was strip searched at Stoke Newington police station in 2013. The woman had been arrested for obstruction after attempting to offer a legal advice card to a black teenager during a stop and search in London. Once in custody, a Sergeant ordered two female officers to strip search the woman. Her clothes were cut off and she claimed that once she was naked the officers touched her breasts and between her legs. She described the search as a "very violating and humiliating experience" and said she was left with multiple injuries and PTSD after the incident. The woman was charged with obstructing and assaulting police but was later acquitted.[42] In 2018, the officer who ordered the strip search of Dr Duff was cleared of gross misconduct charges. In November 2021, a civil claim brought against the Metropolitan Police was settled, with Dr Duff being awarded £6,000 in damages.[43] In January 2022, CCTV footage of the incident was made public. In the footage, the Sergeant who ordered the search can be heard telling officers to "treat her like a terrorist", while others can be heard making derogatory comments about the woman's underwear and pubic hair. After the footage was released, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson apologised for the "sexist, derogatory and unacceptable language used" by the officers involved.[44]

In March 2022, it was reported that Metropolitan Police officers had strip searched a 15-year-old black girl at her school in Hackney in 2020 after she was wrongly accused of possessing cannabis. The 15-year-old, referred to as "Child Q", was menstruating at the time and was searched without her parents present. Shortly after the story was made public, a protest involving several hundred people was held outside Stoke Newington police station, amid concerns that the girl had been targeted because of her race.[45] In September 2023, the Independent Officer for Police Conduct (IOPC) recommended disciplinary action against four of the officers involved in the incident.[46]

In 2023, Sky News launched an investigation into the use of strip searches by Greater Manchester Police. In a story published in July, three women alleged that they had been subjected to unjustified strip searches while in police custody. In one instance, a 38-year-old woman claimed that she was drugged and raped by officers after being arrested in 2021.[47] After the story was published, several other women contacted Sky News alleging that they had been subjected to similar searches by Greater Manchester Police and other police forces across the UK.[48] In response to the story, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham announced that former Victims Commissioner Vera Baird would conduct a formal inquiry into the treatment of women in police custody by Greater Manchester Police, with a focus on strip searches.[49] A final report is due to be published in late 2024.[50]

Notable lawsuits

[edit]

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R v Golden (2001)[51] that "strip-searches may only be done out of clear necessity with the permission of a supervisor and by members of the same sex."[52]

In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012), the United States Supreme Court ruled that strip-searches are permitted for all arrests, including non-indictable, minor offenses.

The Beard v. Whitmore Lake School District (2005) case arose in Michigan when a student reported that $364 had been stolen from her gym bag during a physical education class. In response to the alleged theft, teachers searched the entire class of 20 boys and five girls in their respective locker rooms. Boys were required to undress down to their underwear. Similarly, girls were required to do so as well in front of each other. The alleged theft was reported to the local police who sent an officer who arrived midway through the search. Based on court records, the officer encouraged school personnel to continue the search. At the conclusion of the search, no money was found. A suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan on behalf of students impacted by the search claiming Fourth Amendment rights violations against unreasonable search and seizure and the Fourteenth Amendment rights violation involving an equal protection violation. The case was ultimately ruled on by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit Court focused on several factors that made the strip search unreasonable. One, recovery of money was the primary basis for conducting the search, which did not, in the court's opinion, pose a health or safety threat. Secondly, the search did not involve one or two students but rather a large number of students who did not consent to the search. While the search was held to be unreasonable, the court stopped short of ruling that it was entirely unconstitutional based on prior law involving strip searches of students. Thirdly, school personnel had no reason to suspect any of the students individually. The court emphasized that school leaders have a real interest in maintaining an atmosphere free of theft but a search undertaken to find money serves a less weighty governmental interest than a search undertaken for items that pose a threat to the health and safety of students. Based on the court's position, clearly a search to recover money will not meet the court's expectation regarding the standards associated with a strip search.1

In Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009), the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for school employees to strip search minor students, in this case students in the Safford, Arizona Unified School District.[53]

See also

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Strip search.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Strip search

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A strip search is a custodial search procedure 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 body 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 default, 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 rehabilitation 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 alcohol 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. 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 proportionality 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 examination, 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 squats 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 private, 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 biological sex 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 trauma 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 independent oversight bodies, with supervisory required beforehand in many jurisdictions. Empirical audits demonstrate high compliance: 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 federal cases, per U.S. Sentencing Commission 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 police custody are conducted post-arrest at police 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 body 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 detention, 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 body searches represent a fraction of secondary inspections but have uncovered body-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 strip searches after CBP deemed their post-graduation travel—lacking firm hotel bookings and relying on loose plans—suspicious and potentially indicative of visa 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 strip-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 scanners 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 scanners 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 warrant evaluation to balance deterrence against trauma 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 (PACE) 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 . PACE Code C, paragraph 11, stipulates that a strip search in detention 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 private 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, PACE 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 PACE 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 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 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. German policy historically rejected widespread full-body scanners at airports due to concerns, as stated in 2008 by the Interior Ministry, 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 proportionality 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 strip 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 scanners 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 strip 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 proportionality 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 transmission 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 transmission body scanners rolled out more broadly starting in 2020 across 16 facilities including Birmingham and , expanding to 75 units by 2023. Adoption of these scanners 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 scanners 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. Transmission 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 scanners 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 scanners may miss. Transmission systems, which penetrate tissues to visualize internal items, are paired with visual inspections during strip searches to maximize detection accuracy, as scanners 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 strip 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 integration, 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

Strip 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 strip 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 Indigenous 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 possession—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 police 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 police 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 consensus 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 (PACE) Code A. In June 2025, a disciplinary panel 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 PACE 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 Golden 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. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2933.32
  2. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072500050K103-1
  3. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter5/section19.2-59.1/
  4. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-764-25a
  5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strip_search
  6. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/566/318/
  7. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/557/364/
  8. https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=544.193
  9. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0901/Sections/0901.211.html
  10. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/19/police-strip-searching-children-effective-suspicions-misuse-remain
  11. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/08/unsw-report-reveals-extraordinary-increase-in-police-strip-searc
  12. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-supreme-court-declares-strip-search-13-year-old-student-unconstitutional
  13. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/255
  14. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5120.421
  15. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/new-strip-search-paradigm
  16. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/441/520/
  17. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/correctional-facilities/contraband-detection-control
  18. https://www.corrections1.com/corrections-training/articles/strip-search-policies-in-jails-sKIq8Sv3p5mvucSZ/
  19. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4723&context=flr
  20. https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/supreme-court-says-jails-can-strip-search-you
  21. https://www.shastacounty.gov/media/16456
  22. https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/corrections-trends/history-corrections-in-america
  23. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/the-border-search-muddle/
  24. https://www.usmarshals.gov/who-we-are/history/historical-reading-room/us-marshals-role-during-prohibition
  25. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/the-bureau-and-the-great-experiment-012420
  26. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18613/chapter/4
  27. https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/1975-1980_p_39-49.pdf
  28. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wfs2.1473
  29. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/308636.pdf
  30. https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf
  31. https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/10/511912
  32. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/441/520.html
  33. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-945
  34. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/300856.pdf
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/opinion/prison-strip-searches.html
  36. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/scanners-not-strip-searches-are-better-for-prisons/
  37. https://jlc.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2020-04/AddressingTrauma-EliminatingStripSearch%2520March%25202020.pdf
  38. https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/factsheet-4-searches-2nd-v5.pdf
  39. https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/modelSearchDetainees.pdf
  40. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/doc/pdf/ad/ad06/ad0607_20230711.pdf
  41. https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/2-10.pdf
  42. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-4030/
  43. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/strip-search-what-are-my-rights/
  44. https://freemanssolicitors.net/news-blog/police-powers-strip-searching/
  45. https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2011/01/cross-gender-strip-searches-part-2.html
  46. https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/implementation/prea-standards/prisons-and-jail-standards
  47. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2024/08/26/af230440/strip-search-policy.pdf
  48. https://nola.gov/nola/media/NOPD/SSAPJ-Audit-Report-June-2024-Public.pdf
  49. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23774657.2021.1906356
  50. https://www.aele.org/law/2010-04MLJ301.html
  51. https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-new-arrivals-strip-searched-at-prisons-jails-across-America
  52. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/data-briefings/2025_Prison_Contraband_Offenses.pdf
  53. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/220485.pdf
  54. https://www.villageofgraftonwi.gov/810/901---Custodial-Searches
  55. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/strip-search-after-an-arrest.html
  56. https://www.nj.gov/lps/dcj/agguide/stripout.htm
  57. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/the-battle-over-roadside-strip-searches/
  58. https://www.ctas.tennessee.edu/eli/strip-searches-visual-body-cavity-search
  59. https://www.mass.gov/doc/strip-search-commonwealth-v-rivera-appeals-court-august-5-2024/download
  60. https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/strip-search-during-drug-booking-ruled-reasonable/
  61. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/when-can-police-conduct-a-strip-search/
  62. https://public.powerdms.com/BALTIMOREMD/documents/51030
  63. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority
  64. https://www.tullverket.se/en/startpage/aboutus/whatwedo/operations/searchesonandofthebody.4.21f3dd0d183a9e9ca64bee.html
  65. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-us-airports-and-ports-entry
  66. https://nypost.com/2025/04/21/us-news/german-teens-traveling-to-us-jailed-and-deported-over-loosely-planned-vacation-being-found-suspicious/
  67. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/german-tourists-deported-hawaii-cbp-b2736655.html
  68. https://www.wilx.com/2025/05/24/military-wife-says-she-was-detained-deported-when-trying-visit-husband-vacation/
  69. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3009&context=ulj
  70. https://www.quora.com/How-effective-are-customs-inspections-in-preventing-smuggling-of-illegal-items
  71. https://www.aclum.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-student-searches-investigations
  72. https://www.whitelawpllc.com/faqs/are-strip-searches-and-pat-downs-legal-in-schools/
  73. https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/hrlr/cruel-and-unusual-trauma-how-eighth-amendment-principles-governing-conditions-of-confinement-should-apply-to-juvenile-strip-searches/
  74. https://www.denverpost.com/2025/09/30/colorado-juvenile-detention-strip-searches/
  75. https://coloradocpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/CPO-IssueBrief-DYS-Search_September-30-2025-FINAL.pdf
  76. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/litigation_committees/childrights/strip-search-tool-kit-national-edition.pdf
  77. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-479
  78. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/jail-prison/la-county-will-pay-53m-to-settle-degrading-strip-search-class-action/
  79. https://jlc.org/news/colorado-juvenile-detention-staff-violated-strip-search-policy-1000-times-9-months-watchdog
  80. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a805e7a40f0b62305b8abf6/pace-code-c-2017.pdf
  81. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9593/CBP-9593.pdf
  82. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-amendments-to-pace-codes-of-practice-a-and-c-strip-searches
  83. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9593/
  84. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/13/nsw-police-music-festival-strip-search-class-action-drug-dog-justification-ntwnfb
  85. https://www.connections.edu.au/opinion/encounters-police-drug-detection-dogs-music-festivals-among-people-who-regularly-use
  86. https://www.9news.com.au/national/strip-searches-music-festivals-rules-in-nsw-explained/600c1c7f-69ed-446e-867d-fb48294d2d6f
  87. https://obriensolicitors.com.au/case_study/illegal-strip-searches-underage-attendee-all-ages-music-festival/
  88. https://www.usersnews.com.au/home/new-report-proves-strip-searches-dont-work
  89. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/19/police-presence-at-music-festivals-can-lead-to-panic-overdoses-of-drugs
  90. https://www.monash.edu/medicine/news/latest/2024-articles/first-national-study-into-drug-related-deaths-at-music-festivals
  91. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/02/nsw-police-urged-stop-strip-searching-people-court-finds-conduct-issues
  92. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-30/nsw-government-loses-landmark-police-strip-search-festival-case/105833654
  93. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/10/nsw-police-lost-a-huge-strip-search-lawsuit-it-has-national-implications
  94. https://lsj.com.au/articles/court-rules-police-strip-search-power-abused-on-industrial-level/
  95. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1924/index.do
  96. https://leca.ca/wp-content/uploads/OIPRD-Summary-of-Ontario-Jurisprudence-Involving-Strip-Searches-Accessible-1.pdf
  97. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-44.6/section-48.html
  98. https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/acts-regulations-policy/commissioners-directives/566-7.html
  99. https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2024/2024-10-09/html/sor-dors181-eng.html
  100. https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports/strip-searches/
  101. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Searches_at_an_International_Border
  102. https://bccla.org/privacy-handbook/main-menu/privacy6contents/privacy6-8.html
  103. https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/review-rcmps-policies-and-procedures-regarding-strip-searches
  104. https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MR_Guidance_Doc.pdf
  105. https://rm.coe.int/1680af2743
  106. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/germany-says-full-body-airport-scanner-nonsense-idUSTRE49N5JW/
  107. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/PA1933-RG2?ProvIds=P1VIII-
  108. https://www.sourcesecurity.com/news/co-1967-ga.16338.html
  109. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/2024/GLOTIP2024_Chapter_2.pdf
  110. https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/download/2137/1191
  111. https://theconversation.com/strip-searches-in-prison-are-traumatising-breaches-of-human-rights-so-why-are-governments-still-allowing-them-174463
  112. https://science.howstuffworks.com/millimeter-wave-scanner.htm
  113. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/16-jails-to-receive-x-ray-scanners
  114. https://policeprofessional.com/news/new-search-technologies-to-be-used-in-prisons/
  115. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-51224645
  116. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-prison-smuggling-attempts-thwarted
  117. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity14/sec14-paper-mowery.pdf
  118. https://www.linevsystems.com/news/corporate-news/artificial-intelligence-against-prison-threats-a-disruptive-innovation-in-x-ray-screening/
  119. https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2023/05/30/doc-to-explore-full-body-scanners-under-bill-headed-to-governors-desk/
  120. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656714a175007400131dedc3/Prison_Security_Investment_Programme_X-ray_Body_Scanner_Management_Information_December_2023.pdf
  121. https://correctiveservices.dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/research-and-statistics/b17-x-ray-body-scanner-staff-and-inmate.pdf
  122. https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/45189/QHRC_StrippedOfOurDignity_SummaryReport.pdf
  123. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/The_Scope_Severity_and_Interdiction_of_Contraband_Cell_Phones_in_Correctional_Facilities.pdf
  124. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103619/contraband-and-interdiction-strategies-in-correctional-facilities_0.pdf
  125. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12311&context=dissertations
  126. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/302135.pdf
  127. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/prison-contraband-prevalence-impacts-and-interdiction-strategies
  128. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/correlates-contraband-us-prisons
  129. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawSocCConsc/2015/2.pdf
  130. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5664165/
  131. https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/an-examination-of-traumatic-experiences-and-posttraumatic-stress-disorder-among-a-sample-of-illinois-prisoners
  132. https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2019/09/InmateGrievanceAnnualReport2012.pdf
  133. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/body_searches_in_detention.pdf
  134. https://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/AddressingTrauma-EliminatingStripSearch.pdf
  135. https://saratogafalcon.org/3476/opinion/strip-searches-maximize-prison-security/
  136. https://www.tps.ca/media/filer_public/cb/1e/cb1eee44-6588-49bb-8348-3cd52a9d1f7b/36f850b4-b1ed-4525-9317-462878b84a9e.pdf
  137. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504630.2025.2524177
  138. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/
  139. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-the-role-of-race-in-crime-and-police-violence/
  140. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=mjrl
  141. https://english.news.cn/20240819/eab017ad564c48968c5fdfd495dc216a/c.html
  142. https://ctmirror.org/2023/05/30/ct-strip-search-prison-end-bill-study/
  143. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2023/nov/15/connecticut-lawmakers-punt-limiting-prison-strip-searches/
  144. https://ctmirror.org/2025/08/01/ct-strip-search-body-scanners-prisons/
  145. https://theconversation.com/nsw-police-lost-a-huge-strip-search-lawsuit-it-has-national-implications-266365
  146. https://childrenslegalcentre.wales/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Home-Office-PACE-Consultation-response-CRAE-CLCW-YJLC-11th-June-2024-003.pdf
  147. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/6/30640.pdf
  148. https://chscp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Child-Q-PUBLISHED-14-March-22.pdf
  149. https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/gross-misconduct-proven-two-met-officers-strip-search-child-q-hackney-school
  150. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/21/thousands-of-children-strip-searched-by-police-in-england-and-wales-last-year
  151. https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/d/october-2022/data-custody-detentions-related-strip-searches-april2017-march2022/
  152. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13624806241230485
  153. https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/strip-search-the-truth/
  154. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc83/2001scc83.html
  155. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1834&context=ajacourtreview
  156. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art8.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.