You make a very interesting point. I'd be interested in reading the opinion. Can anyone find it? Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written countless opinions where her "test" is simply that something "shocks the conscience." She is a moron and so are her tests but they stand. She typically applies them to Gender discrimination and police conduct cases, I could pull a few of her cases for you but I'd hate to have you lose your lunch. (She truly is awful.)
My guess however is that they used this standard to justify throwing out the conviction (e.g. a violation of one of the crackheads- no pun intended- constitutional rights.)
But, still, I would like to read this judge's opinion.
From the opinion:
The strip search of Thompson differed from the strip searches in Williams and Cofield. Thompson was required to bend over with his bare buttocks exposed and raised in the air, while the officers allowed the camerawoman to observe and film him in that position, for a program to be aired on national television. As we have stated, the camerawoman stood at the threshold of the motel bathroom door and filmed Thompson’s exposed buttocks as Officer Gard stood over him while Officer Lee walked outside to retrieve rubber gloves. During that time, the camerawoman zoomed in on Thompson’s bare buttocks for several seconds.Where should the media line be drawn? We think the line should be drawn here. Otherwise, the next case might well involve a civilian filming or photographing a strip search incident to arrest where the contraband is found and removed from an anal or vaginal cavity. Where, as here, the search occurs in a private place and the police are in complete control of the circumstances surrounding the search, we can find no justification for law enforcement to allow a civilian to film or photograph the strip search of a suspect naked below the waist. We conclude that, under these circumstances, the strip search was not only unprofessional but was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.