Supreme Court of the United States
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington
April 2, 2012566 U.S. 318
Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's reversal of summary judgment for Albert Florence, holding that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not bar the Burlington County and Essex County jails from conducting suspicionless visual strip searches of every arrestee admitted to the general population, including persons arrested for minor offenses. Applying the deference framework of Turner and Bell, the Court concluded the intake searches struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and institutional security needs, and it rejected petitioner's reasonable-suspicion exemption as unworkable because offense severity poorly predicts contraband, officers lack reliable classification information at intake, and readily administrable rules are essential. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito concurred to stress that the holding leaves open exceptions for detainees not admitted to the general population; Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissented, arguing such searches of minor-offense arrestees violate the Fourth Amendment absent reasonable suspicion.
Holding
- Whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require jail officials to exempt detainees arrested for minor offenses from visual strip searches at intake unless officers have reasonable suspicion of concealed contraband.. No. Even assuming all the facts in favor of petitioner, the search procedures at the Burlington County Detention Center and the Essex County Correctional Facility struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions; the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require adoption of the framework of rules petitioner proposes.
- Whether petitioner's proposed exemption—no invasive search of detainees not arrested for serious crimes or offenses involving weapons or drugs unless officers have particular reason to suspect hidden contraband—is workable.. The proposed exemption is unworkable. The seriousness of an offense is a poor predictor of who has contraband; jails know little about arrestees at intake, officers often lack access to criminal-history records, and those records can be inaccurate or incomplete; and officers would face serious implementation difficulties, potential charges of discriminatory application, and incentives to skip thorough searches in close cases.
Docket 10-945
Cited authorities
- CA10
- CA11
- CA10
- Iowa Code §804.30
- CA10
- CA11
- 42 U.S.C. §1983
- 42 U.S.C. §1983