Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the Country of Burlington

business

Description

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


Syllabus


FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR


THE THIRD CIRCUIT


No. 10–945. Argued October 12, 2011—Decided April 2, 2012

Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state

trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a

bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear


at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Cor-

section Facility, but was released once it was determined that the


fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming

detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for


scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petition-

er claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out


his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while


an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an


officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arm-

pits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower, and had his


clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift

his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He filed a 42


U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the gov-

government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging


Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that per-

sons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive


searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of


weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him sum-

mary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” nonindictable offenders


without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The

Third Circuit reversed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


Syllabus


FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR


THE THIRD CIRCUIT


No. 10–945. Argued October 12, 2011—Decided April 2, 2012

Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state

a trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a

bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear


at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Bur-

Arlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Cor-

section Facility, but was released once it was determined that the


fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming

the detainee had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for


scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petition-

er claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out


his arms, turn around and lift his genitals. At the second jail, pets-

toner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while


an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an


officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arm-

pits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower, and had his


clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift

his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He filed a 42


U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the gov-

government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging


Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that per-

sons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive


searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of


weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him sum-

mary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” nonindictable offenders


without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The

Third Circuit reversed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.


Related Questions in business category


Disclaimer
The ready solutions purchased from Library are already used solutions. Please do not submit them directly as it may lead to plagiarism. Once paid, the solution file download link will be sent to your provided email. Please either use them for learning purpose or re-write them in your own language. In case if you haven't get the email, do let us know via chat support.