| Revision as of 15:39, 8 April 2012 editTeammm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,991 edits refs← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:41, 10 April 2012 edit undoCrcorrea (talk | contribs)75 edits additional section on public opinionNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| Justice ] ], joined by Justices ], ], and ]. | Justice ] ], joined by Justices ], ], and ]. | ||
| ==Public opinion summary== | |||
| In December 2011, after oral arguments but months before the Court’s decision was announced, ]’s ] conducted a nationwide study to measure the opinion of voters on the constitutional dilemma of whether strip searches should be conducted on everyone taken to jail or not. Results showed that a significant majority (65%) of voters agreed that if the offense is minor, officials must have reasonable suspicion before conducting a strip search. On the other hand, (31%) of voters felt that regardless of the offense, officials should have the authority to strip search anyone taken to jail.<ref name=Fairleigh>Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind, (April 2, 2012). (press release)</ref> | |||
| Democrats (30%-67%) and Republicans (31%-65%) shared virtually the same opinion. However, there were gender differences. Women (25%-70%) had a tendency to be less sympathetic about automatic strip searches compared to men (37%-61%). <ref name=Fairleigh /> | |||
| Bruce Peabody, professor of political science at FDU, and editor of The Politics of Judicial Independence commented on the results: “Here we have a perfect storm of public opinion that combines people’s misgivings about government power with the great invasiveness of personal searches, and the fact that such searches could occur even after small matters like ticket violations.”<ref name=Fairleigh /> | |||
| == 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=http://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 |accessdate=2012-04-08}}</ref> | The ] released a press statement saying that the decision "puts the privacy rights of millions of Americans at risk."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://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 |accessdate=2012-04-08}}</ref> | ||
Revision as of 15:41, 10 April 2012
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 County of Burlington, et al. |
| Docket no. | 10-945 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 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, 10-945 (2012), is 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, prison guards "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 argued that "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."
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito issued separate concurrences.
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
Public opinion summary
In December 2011, after oral arguments but months before the Court’s decision was announced, Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind conducted a nationwide study to measure the opinion of voters on the constitutional dilemma of whether strip searches should be conducted on everyone taken to jail or not. Results showed that a significant majority (65%) of voters agreed that if the offense is minor, officials must have reasonable suspicion before conducting a strip search. On the other hand, (31%) of voters felt that regardless of the offense, officials should have the authority to strip search anyone taken to jail.
Democrats (30%-67%) and Republicans (31%-65%) shared virtually the same opinion. However, there were gender differences. Women (25%-70%) had a tendency to be less sympathetic about automatic strip searches compared to men (37%-61%).
Bruce Peabody, professor of political science at FDU, and editor of The Politics of Judicial Independence commented on the results: “Here we have a perfect storm of public opinion that combines people’s misgivings about government power with the great invasiveness of personal searches, and the fact that such searches could occur even after small matters like ticket violations.”
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
- 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. "Jailhouse Strip Searches Backed by U.S. Supreme Court Ruling". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2012-04-08.
- ^ "Supreme Court approves strip searches for minor offenses". CSMonitor.com. Retrieved 2012-04-08.
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington et al. Retrieved April 8, 2012.
- 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 2012-04-08.
- ^ Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind, (April 2, 2012). Nation Sides with New Jersey Motorist Against Court, Automatic Strip Searches (press release)
- "ACLU Says Supreme Court Decision Upholding Strip Searches Puts Privacy Rights of Millions of Americans at Risk | American Civil Liberties Union". Aclu.org. 2012-04-02. Retrieved 2012-04-08.
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 the decision from the United States Supreme Court Template:PDF
- Coverage of the case on SCOTUSblog
- Coverage of the case on Oyez
- Coverage of the case on the New Jersey ACLU's site