Suspicionless Strip Searches -- What's Next?

I know that we have been discussing data security lately in class. However, I saw this really interesting article in the ABA Litigation Journal this month that discusses 4th Amendment privacy rights. The title of the article is "Suspicionless Strip Searches." It tells a story of an exemplary citizen, Rosemary Munyiri. Rosemary, while driving home from work on a rainy dark evening (12 hour shift as a cardiac nurse for Johns Hopkins Hospital) did not notice that her normal freeway exit was closed with police flares. A police officer then flipped on his emergency lights. Not thinking that she had done anything, Rosemary continued to drive, looking for a safe spot to yield for the police car. When she finally realized that the police officer was pulling her over, she stopped her car and waited to see what the problem was. The officer approached the vehicle, and having his gun drawn told Rosemary to exit her vehicle. He then had her get down on the wet pavement and he handcuffed her. Rosemary was under arrest for three misdemeanor charges: negligent driving, failure to pull to the curb upon a police vehicle's signal, and an attempt to elude uniformed police by failing to stop. Rosemary was then taken to Baltimore's Central Booking where she was ordered to strip completely naked in front of several guards and other detainees. She was then searched, invasive in nature, which required her to spread her buttocks and vaginal areas. She then spent the evening in a holding cell before being released on bond. Rosemary's charges were eventually dismissed, when the police officer (the only prosecution witness) failed to show up for trial. So the question is, was Rosemary's privacy rights violated in this situation? According to the Supreme Court, no. In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that suspicionless strip searches  in the name of "jail security" trumps a person's privacy interest. Justice Breyer, in a dissenting opinion, stated that, "[A] strip search that involves a stranger peering without consent at a naked individual, and in a particular at the most private portions of that person's body, is a serious invasion of privacy." Chief Justice Roberts in a concurrence says that Florence shouldn't be considered a blanket rule that there is the possibility for "exceptions." The question is, if Rosemary's situation does not fall into the possible exceptions category that Roberts suggested exist, than what does? I bring this to the class's attention because although we talking about privacy and technology right now, there are still serious privacy issues surrounding something as intimate as a person's own body. And the invasive nature and public forum that the search is held is a privacy concern that could affect anyone (that is who has been pulled over by a traffic cop). I worry that this type of invasion of privacy, could seriously affect a person's mental and emotional stability, especially if that person was a law-abiding person who was simply driving home from a long day at work.