Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington
566 U.S. 318, 132 S. Ct. 1510, 182 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Correctional officials may conduct a close visual inspection of every detainee, including those arrested for minor offenses, as a standard part of the intake process before admitting the detainee to the general jail population, without violating the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- In 1998, Albert Florence was convicted of minor offenses in Essex County, New Jersey, and sentenced to pay a fine.
- In 2003, after Florence fell behind on payments, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding fine a week later, but the warrant erroneously remained in a statewide database.
- In 2005, a state trooper in Burlington County stopped Florence and his wife. The trooper arrested Florence based on the outstanding warrant.
- Florence was taken to the Burlington County Detention Center. As part of a standard intake procedure for all detainees, he was required to shower while an officer visually inspected his body, which included being instructed to lift his genitals.
- After six days, Florence was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility.
- At the Essex County jail, he was again subjected to a standard visual inspection where he had to remove his clothing while an officer inspected his body, and was required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough in a squatting position.
- The search policies at both jails applied to all detainees being admitted to the general population, regardless of the severity of their alleged offense or their criminal history.
- Florence was released the next day after the charges related to the warrant were dismissed.
Procedural Posture:
- Albert Florence filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the operators of the Burlington and Essex County jails.
- The District Court certified a class action for individuals arrested for nonindictable offenses who were strip-searched without reasonable suspicion.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Florence, finding the search policies unconstitutional.
- The jail authorities (defendants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Third Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the search policies were reasonable.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the constitutionality of suspicionless strip searches for all detainees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment permit a correctional facility to conduct a close visual inspection of every arrestee, including those arrested for minor offenses, as part of the intake process before admitting them to the general jail population, without any individualized suspicion that the arrestee is concealing contraband?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. A correctional facility's policy of conducting a close visual inspection of every detainee upon admission to the general population is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials in matters of institutional security unless there is substantial evidence that their policies are an exaggerated response to security concerns. The procedures are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, including detecting and deterring the smuggling of contraband, identifying gang affiliations, and preventing the spread of disease or lice. The seriousness of an offense is a poor predictor of whether a detainee will attempt to smuggle contraband, as even those arrested for minor offenses have been found with dangerous items, and they may be coerced by other inmates. Creating a system of exceptions for minor offenders would be administratively difficult and would create security loopholes that inmates could exploit, undermining the deterrent effect of the search policy.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
No. Subjecting individuals arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence to a suspicionless strip search is an unreasonable search forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. The search entails a serious invasion of personal privacy that is demeaning, humiliating, and an affront to human dignity. The asserted penological interests do not justify such an invasive search for this category of arrestees. There is no convincing evidence that contraband smuggling by minor offenders is a significant problem that cannot be addressed by less intrusive means or a reasonable suspicion standard. Numerous correctional associations, federal agencies, and state laws already prohibit suspicionless strip searches for minor offenders, demonstrating that a reasonable suspicion standard is workable and does not compromise jail security.
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes. The Court's reasoning is persuasive for the general applicability of the rule. However, it is important that the Court does not foreclose the possibility of exceptions in future cases with different factual circumstances. The facts here, involving an arrest on a warrant and no apparent alternative to housing Florence in the general population, support the holding, but factual nuances might lead to a different result in another case.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes. The holding is limited to arrestees who are committed to the general population of a jail. The Court does not hold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not yet been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could be housed separately from the general population. For individuals arrested for minor offenses who are often released quickly, admission to the general population and the accompanying strip search may not be reasonable if alternative, less intrusive procedures are feasible.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant circuit split, establishing a bright-line rule that prioritizes institutional security over the privacy interests of detainees entering a jail's general population. It reinforces the high level of deference courts must afford to the judgment of correctional officials under the standard set forth in Turner v. Safley and Bell v. Wolfish. While providing clear guidance for jail administrators, the decision curtails Fourth Amendment protections for individuals arrested for minor offenses. The concurrences, particularly Justice Alito's, are critical as they signal a potential avenue for future litigation, suggesting that such searches may be unconstitutional for arrestees who are not yet judicially processed and can be segregated from the general population.
Unlock the full brief for Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington