Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington et al., Defendants/Appellees
Facts: Seven years prior to the decision, Albert W. Florence was arrested and sentenced to pay a fine. Florence later missed a payment, and an arrest warrant was issued. Florence then paid the fine, but the warrant was never rescinded. Two years later, when a trooper stopped Florence and his wife in their automobile, Florence was arrested on the basis of the warrant. Florence was taken to Burlington County Jail, where he was subjected to a strip search. Six days later, Florence was transferred to Essex County Correctional Facility, where he was made to disrobe and an officer looked at Florence’s hair, mouth, fingers, hands, arms, and other orifices. Florence was also made to lift his genitals and cough while squatting. Florence was then admitted to the general population, but was released the following day. Both searches were the standard procedure of the given institutions.
Procedural History: Appellant filed suit against the involved government agencies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey claiming that his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated by the searches. The District Court granted Appellant’s summary judgment motion on an unlawful search claim. The Board appealed and the Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, stating that the search policy was reasonably balanced between inmate privacy and prison security needs. Appellant appealed, and the Supreme Court granted cert. because the issue was divided among the different Circuit courts.
Issue: Whether the prison’s interests outweigh Appellant’s claim that those arrested for minor offenses are exempt from more invasive searches unless there is reasonable suspicion of concealed weapons or contraband.
Holding: Yes, the prison’s interests did outweigh Appellant’s claim that those arrested for minor offenses are exempt from more invasive searches unless there is a reasonable suspicion of concealed weapons or contraband, and therefore there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Reasoning: The Court’s holding was based on a former decision, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), which stated that deference is given to prison officials in a situation where the constitutional rights of inmates are being infringed upon if the infringing regulation is reasonably related to legitimate prison interests. The party challenging the regulations must overcome the deference given to the prisons. The Court in this case determined that the Appellant did not provide evidence to overcome the deference standard and that the prison officials had significant interests that were being promoted by the search regulations. The Court also held that it would be impractical to enforce different search standards based on the severity of the arrestee’s offenses.
- The Court found that prisons have a significant interest in searching new detainees. Three interests were put forward by Appellees:
- Prison officials have an interest in promoting safety. New detainees could be concealing weapons, drugs, or other contraband that could threaten the safety of the other inmates and prison officials.
- Prison officials have an interest in preventing the spread of lice and other contagions. Arrestees may have lice or other contagions, and it is necessary to prevent the spread of the contagions into the rest of the prison.
- Prison officials have an interest in detecting gang affiliations. By having arrestees strip, prison officials can conduct a visual inspection for gang tattoos. Prison officials could then determine where arrestees should be placed to prevent gang violence.
- Appellant’s argument that the extensiveness of the search should correspond to the severity of the offense was not practical. The Court states that there is no evidence that those who have committed minor offenses will not bring in contraband. Additionally, hardened criminals may be arrested for minor offenses. It also may be difficult for officers to determine the extent of a search onarrestees because there may not be access to information. Officers may also be hesitant to do invasive searches because of potential law suits, and then contraband may find its way into the prison.
Decision: Affirmed. The interests of the prison outweigh the privacy interests of arrestees detained for minor offenses. Therefore there is no Fourth Amendment violation in this particular instance, however the Court does note that this holding is limited to the particulars of this case and does not necessarily extend to arrestees who is not assigned to the general prison population.
Concurring Opinions: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito filed separate concurring opinions where they each emphasized that the Court’s holding only applied to this particular case and that there could be exceptions in the future.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan) filed a dissenting opinion.
Dissent’s Issue: Breyer stated that the real issue is whether prison officials can conduct a strip search on those arrested for minor offenses who will be entering the general prison population. This is narrower than the Court’s stated issue.
Dissent’s Holding: Prison officials cannot conduct strip searches that involve genital lifting and squatting and coughing on arrestees who have committed minor offenses that will be entering the general prison population unless there is reasonable suspicion of concealed contraband. Therefore, Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
Dissent’s Reasoning: Breyer uses balancing test from Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), which is briefly mentioned by the Court in the majority opinion. The balancing test requires a court to determine if the need for the search is greater than the invasion of personal rights. Breyer focuses on whether the strip search is justified in these circumstances and concludes that they are not based on the following:
- Breyer cites examples of the harm, humiliation, and degradation that comes from strip searches, which demonstrate that an invasion of privacy has taken place.
- Breyer does not think that there is any connection between the genital lift and the squat-cough and the prison’s interests of promoting safety, preventing contagion, and recognizing gang tattoos. This is based on the lack of evidence presented by Appellees, because neither the Court nor Appellees present examples of when these measures have resulted in the discovery of contraband for minor offenders.
- Instead Breyer cites evidence to the contrary: professional organizations do not promote strip searches in these circumstances and ten states and seven Courts of Appeal have prohibited this type of strip search unless there is reasonable suspicion of contraband. Breyer notes that there have not been negative consequences from requiring reasonable suspicion.
- Bell is distinguished based on facts of case: Bell upheld searches of prisoners who had just had contact with visitors.
Comment: This case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s ability to determine and clarify constitutional issues for divided Courts of Appeal. The Court granted cert. in order to clarify the Fourth Amendment issue and was able to do so with its holding. Additionally, this case demonstrates the limitations that have been placed on the Fourth Amendment in the interests of security.
