| Revision as of 15:39, 8 April 2012 editTeammm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,991 edits refs← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:33, 15 November 2024 edit undoInternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Pending changes reviewers5,388,432 edits Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) (Whoop whoop pull up - 21747 | ||
| (71 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}} | |||
| {{Infobox SCOTUS case | {{Infobox SCOTUS case | ||
| |Litigants=Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders | |Litigants=Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders | ||
| Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
| |DecideDate=April 2 | |DecideDate=April 2 | ||
| |DecideYear=2012 | |DecideYear=2012 | ||
| |FullName=Albert W. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, et al. | |FullName=Albert W. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, et al. | ||
| |USVol= | |USVol=566 | ||
| |USPage= | |USPage=318 | ||
| |ParallelCitations=132 S. Ct. 1510; 182 ] 566 | |||
| |Citation= | |||
| |CitationNew=566 U.S. ___ | |||
| |Docket=10-945 | |Docket=10-945 | ||
| |OralArgument= |
|OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_945/argument | ||
| |Prior= |
|Prior=Judgment for plaintiff, 595 ] (] 2009); Question certified for appeal, 657 ] (D.N.J. 2009); reversed, 621 ] (] 2010); ]. granted, {{ussc|563|917|2011|el=no}}. | ||
| |Subsequent= | |Subsequent= | ||
| |Holding=Officials may ] 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 ] |
|Holding=Officials may ] 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 ]. | ||
| |SCOTUS=2010-2012 | |||
| |Majority=Kennedy | |Majority=Kennedy | ||
| |JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but |
|JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV) | ||
| |Concurrence=Roberts | |Concurrence=Roberts | ||
| |Concurrence2=Alito | |Concurrence2=Alito | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| '''''Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders''''', |
'''''Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders''''', 566 U.S. 318 (2012), was a ] case in which the Court held that officials may ] 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 ].<ref> Retrieved April 8, 2012.</ref> | ||
| == Background == | == Background == | ||
| Albert W. Florence was riding in a ] ] in ] driven by his wife with their three children when she was pulled over for a traffic offense.<ref>{{cite |
Albert W. Florence was riding in a ] ] in ] driven by his wife with their three children when she was pulled over for a traffic offense.<ref>{{cite news|last=Stohr |first=Greg |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/jailhouse-strip-searches-backed-by-u-s-supreme-court.html |title=Jailhouse Strip Searches Backed by U.S. Supreme Court Ruling |newspaper=Bloomberg |date=2 April 2012 |access-date=2012-04-08}}</ref><ref name="csmonitor">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0402/Supreme-Court-approves-strip-searches-for-minor-offenses |title=Supreme Court approves strip searches for minor offenses |journal=Christian Science Monitor |date= 2012-04-02|access-date=2012-04-08}}</ref> The officer looked up Florence in the police computer database and discovered an outstanding warrant issued in ]. Florence had paid the fine, but the computer erroneously listed an outstanding warrant.<ref name="csmonitor" /> Florence was placed under arrest in ] 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."<ref name="csmonitor" /> Florence went before a judge and was quickly released from jail. | ||
| Florence filed suit against the two jails under {{usc|42|1983}} alleging that his ] and ] rights had been violated.<ref |
Florence filed suit against the two jails under {{usc|42|1983}} alleging that his ] and ] rights had been violated.<ref name="case opinion">{{ussc|name=Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders|volume=566|page=318|pin=|year=2012}}.</ref> Florence, with Counsel of Record ], argued that "persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive ... (]-unreasonable searches) ... searches unless prison officials have ... (]-]) ... reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband." A federal judge agreed.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders |vol=595 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=492 |court=] |date=2009 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/20091087595aofsupp2d49211047 |access-date=2018-12-31 }}</ref> On appeal, the ] reversed, holding that the "jails' interest in safety and security outweighed the privacy interests of detainees – even those accused of minor crimes."<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders |vol=621 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=296 |court=] |date=2010 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20100921118 |access-date=2018-12-31 }}</ref><ref name="csmonitor" /> The case was subsequently appealed to the ]; the Court granted '']'' on April 4, 2011.<ref> Retrieved April 8, 2012.</ref> | ||
| == Opinion of the Court == | == Opinion of the Court == | ||
| In a 5–4 decision written by Justice ], the Court held that officials may ] 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 ]. Kennedy was joined by ] ] and Justices ], ], and ]. Justice Thomas joined all parts of Kennedy's opinion except part IV. | In a 5–4 decision written by Justice ], the Court held that officials may ] 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 ]. Kennedy was joined by ] ] and Justices ], ], and ]. Justice Thomas joined all parts of Kennedy's opinion except part IV. | ||
| In his opinion, Kennedy noted that Timothy |
In his opinion, Kennedy noted that Timothy McVeigh was stopped by a state trooper after the ] for driving without a license plate. And, one of the ] hijackers was "stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,"<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-jail-strip-searches----even-for-minor-offenses/2012/04/02/gIQAsZB4qS_story_1.html |title=Supreme Court upholds jail strip searches, including for minor offenses |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=2012-04-08}}</ref> emphasizing the discrepancies that may exist between why an individual is arrested and the kind of threat they pose to society. | ||
| Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito issued separate concurrences. | Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito issued separate concurrences. | ||
| Justice ] ], joined by Justices ], ], and ]. In the dissent, they argued that ] on strip-searches suggests there is no convincing reason that, in the absence of ], involuntary strip-searches of those arrested for minor offenses are necessary. They cited a study conducted in ] under the supervision of federal courts, where out of 23,000 people searched, only one inmate had hidden contraband in his body in a way that would have avoided detection by ] and a ].<ref name="case brief">{{cite web|title=Case Brief: Florence v. Board of Freeholders|url=http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/florence-v-board-of-freeholders.html|publisher=Alliance for Justice. afj.org|access-date=April 23, 2012|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130224000848/http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/florence-v-board-of-freeholders.html|archive-date=February 24, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> A cited ] study found only three instances out of 75,000 inmates strip-searched in a five-year period.<ref name="case opinion"/> | |||
| Justice ] ], joined by Justices ], ], and ]. | |||
| == Subsequent developments == | == Subsequent developments == | ||
| The ] released a press statement saying that the decision "puts the privacy rights of millions of Americans at risk."<ref>{{cite web|url= |
The ] released a press statement saying that the decision "puts the privacy rights of millions of Americans at risk."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-says-supreme-court-decision-upholding-strip-searches-puts-privacy-rights |title=ACLU Says Supreme Court Decision Upholding Strip Searches Puts Privacy Rights of Millions of Americans at Risk | American Civil Liberties Union |publisher=Aclu.org |date=2012-04-02 |access-date=2012-04-08}}</ref> | ||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| ==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
| * {{cite journal |last=Beler |first=Michael |year=2011 |title=Permitting Blanket Strip-Search Policies for all Arrestees Entering General Jail Population |journal=Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy |volume=16 |
* {{cite journal |last=Beler |first=Michael |year=2011 |title=Permitting Blanket Strip-Search Policies for all Arrestees Entering General Jail Population |journal=Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy |volume=16 |page=284 }} | ||
| * {{cite journal |last=Ha |first=Daphne |title=Blanket Policies for Strip Searching Pretrial Detainees: An Interdisciplinary Argument for Reasonableness |year=2011 |journal=Fordham Law Review |volume=79 |issue=6 |
* {{cite journal |last=Ha |first=Daphne |title=Blanket Policies for Strip Searching Pretrial Detainees: An Interdisciplinary Argument for Reasonableness |year=2011 |journal=Fordham Law Review |volume=79 |issue=6 |ssrn=1801305 }} | ||
| == |
==External links== | ||
| * {{caselaw source | |||
| * {{PDF}} | |||
| | case = ''Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders'', {{Ussc|566|318|2012|el=no}} | |||
| | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2848162943344825148 | |||
| | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/566/318/ | |||
| | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-945 | |||
| | other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived) | |||
| | other_url1 =https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf | |||
| |loc=https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep566/usrep566318/usrep566318.pdf}} | |||
| * | * | ||
| ⚫ | * {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120403014837/http://www.aclu-nj.org/legaldocket/florencevburlington/ |date=April 3, 2012 }} | ||
| * | |||
| ⚫ | * | ||
| {{US4thAmendment|warrantexceptions|state=expanded}} | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 07:33, 15 November 2024
2012 United States Supreme Court case
| Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| 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 no. | 10-945 |
| Citations | 566 U.S. 318 (more)132 S. Ct. 1510; 182 L. Ed. 2d 566 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment 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); cert. granted, 563 U.S. 917 (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. | |
| 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. 318 (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.
Background
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.
Opinion of the Court
In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, 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. Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas joined all parts of Kennedy's opinion except part IV.
In his opinion, Kennedy noted that Timothy McVeigh was stopped by a state trooper after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing for driving without a license plate. And, one of the September 11 hijackers was "stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93," emphasizing the discrepancies that may exist between why an individual is arrested and the kind of threat they pose to society.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito issued separate concurrences.
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. In the dissent, they argued that empirical evidence on strip-searches suggests there is no convincing reason that, in the absence of reasonable suspicion, involuntary strip-searches of those arrested for minor offenses are necessary. They cited a study conducted in New York under the supervision of federal courts, where out of 23,000 people searched, only one inmate had hidden contraband in his body in a way that would have avoided detection by x-ray and a pat-down. A cited California study found only three instances out of 75,000 inmates strip-searched in a five-year period.
Subsequent developments
The American Civil Liberties Union released a press statement saying that the decision "puts the privacy rights of millions of Americans at risk."
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 566
- Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Search and seizure
- Strip search
References
- Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip Searches for Any Arrest Retrieved April 8, 2012.
- Stohr, Greg (April 2, 2012). "Jailhouse Strip Searches Backed by U.S. Supreme Court Ruling". Bloomberg. Retrieved April 8, 2012.
- ^ "Supreme Court approves strip searches for minor offenses". Christian Science Monitor. April 2, 2012. Retrieved April 8, 2012.
- ^ Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012).
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 595 F. Supp. 2d 492 (D.N.J. 2009).
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 621 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2010).
- Albert W. Florence, Petitioner v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, et al. Retrieved April 8, 2012.
- "Supreme Court upholds jail strip searches, including for minor offenses". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 8, 2012.
- "Case Brief: Florence v. Board of Freeholders". Alliance for Justice. afj.org. Archived from the original on February 24, 2013. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
- "ACLU Says Supreme Court Decision Upholding Strip Searches Puts Privacy Rights of Millions of Americans at Risk | American Civil Liberties Union". Aclu.org. April 2, 2012. Retrieved April 8, 2012.
Further reading
- Beler, Michael (2011). "Permitting Blanket Strip-Search Policies for all Arrestees Entering General Jail Population". Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy. 16: 284.
- Ha, Daphne (2011). "Blanket Policies for Strip Searching Pretrial Detainees: An Interdisciplinary Argument for Reasonableness". Fordham Law Review. 79 (6). SSRN 1801305. Fordham Law Review
External links
- Text of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
- Coverage of the case on SCOTUSblog
- Coverage of the case on the New Jersey ACLU's site Archived April 3, 2012, at the Wayback Machine