Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders | |
---|---|
Argued October 12, 2011 Decided April 2, 2012 |
|
Full case name | Albert W. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, et al. |
Docket nos. | 10-945 |
Citations | 566 U.S. ___ (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Prior history | Judgement for plaintiff, 595 F.Supp.2d 492 (D.N.J. 2009); Question certified for appeal, 657 F.Supp.2d 504 (D.N.J. 2009); reversed, 621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 563 U. S. ___ (2011). |
Holding | |
Officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband. Third circuit affirmed. | |
Court membership | |
|
|
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but part IV) |
Concurrence | Roberts |
Concurrence | Alito |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const amends. IV, XIV |
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband.
Albert W. Florence was riding in a BMW sport-utility vehicle in New Jersey driven by his wife with their three children when she was pulled over for a traffic offense. The officer looked up Florence in the police computer database and discovered an outstanding warrant issued in Essex County. Florence had paid the fine, but the computer erroneously listed an outstanding warrant. Florence was placed under arrest in Burlington County and spent six days in jail before being transferred to Essex County's jail. At both jails, custody officers "conducted a visual inspection of his body, instructing him to open his mouth, lift his tongue, lift his arms, and then lift his genitals." Florence went before a judge and was quickly released from jail.
Florence filed suit against the two jails under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. Florence, with Counsel of Record Susan Chana Lask, argued that "persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive ... (Fourth Amendment-unreasonable searches) ... searches unless prison officials have ... (Fourteenth Amendment-due process clause) ... reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband." A federal judge agreed. On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the "jails' interest in safety and security outweighed the privacy interests of detainees – even those accused of minor crimes." The case was subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court; the Court granted certiorari on April 4, 2011.