preview

Lstd302 Case Brief

Satisfactory Essays
Legal Case Brief

43271590

LSTD302

Professor Tamara Herdener

October 25, 2015
Case Citation: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. ___(2012).

Parties: Albert W. Florence, Plaintiff/Appellant Board of Chosen Freeholder of County of Burlington, Defendant/Appellee

Facts: Albert Florence was arrested for an outdated warrant. Upon his arrest he was taken to the Burlington County Detention Center where he was subject to a strip search. He remained there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex county facility where he was subjected to another strip search and a visual body cavity search. Florence contends that these searches violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
…show more content…
In Block v. Rutherford, 468 U. S. 576 (1984), it was concluded that banning contact visits would be beneficial since visitors can conceal prohibited items and they can easily be transferred to the inmates through close contact and it would be too difficult to tell which inmates have violent tendencies as the inmate population is constantly changing. A new inmate can pose numerous risks to the staff and existing detainee population. Therefore, it is important that correctional officers conduct a thorough search as part of their standard procedure for all new inmates. Incoming inmates need to be searched in order to detect any concealed contraband that may disrupt the safety and operation of a jail as well as treating individuals who may have wounds or visual infections.

Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit holding that strip searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment. They concluded that due to the likelihood of inmates smuggling illegal/prohibited items, it was reasonable that the facilities conducted thorough searches in order to maintain the safety and order of the institutions. Comments: New Jersey Law mandated that there needed to be a suspicion
    Get Access