Florence vs board of chosen freeholders of county of burlington et al essay

Board of Chosen Freeholders Save Florence v.

Florence vs board of chosen freeholders of county of burlington et al essay

Facility personnel, other inmates, and the new detainee himself or herself may be in danger if these threats are introduced into the jail population. This case presents the question of what rules, or limitations, the Constitution imposes on searches of arrested persons who are to be held in jail while their cases are being processed.

The specific measures being challenged will be described in more detail; but, in broad terms, the controversy concerns whether every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed.

The case turns in part on the extent to which this Court has sufficient expertise and information in the record to mandate, under the Constitution, the specific restrictions and limitations sought by those who challenge the visual search procedures at issue. In addressing this type of constitutional claim courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or un-justified response to problems of jail security.

Thatnecessary showing has not been made in this case. I Inseven years before the incidents at issue, petitioner Albert Florence was arrested after fleeing from police officers in Essex County, New Jersey.

He was charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine in monthly installments.

Inafter he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.

He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later; but, for some unexplained reason, the warrant remained in a statewide computer database. Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jersey, petitioner and his wife were stopped in their automobile by a state trooper.

Based on the outstanding warrant in the computer system, the officer arrested petitioner and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center.

He was held there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility. It is not the arrest or confinement but the search process at each jail that gives rise to the claims before the Court. Burlington County jail procedures required every arrestee to shower with a delousing agent.

Officers would check arrestees for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as they disrobed. Petitioner claims he was also instructed to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals.

Florence vs board of chosen freeholders of county of burlington et al essay

It is not clear whether this last step was part of the normal practice. Petitioner shared a cell with at least one other person and interacted with other inmates following his admission to the jail. The Essex County Correctional Facility, where peti-tioner was taken after six days, is the largest county jailin New Jersey.

It admits more than 25, in-mates each year and houses about 1, gang members at any given time. When petitioner was transferred there, all arriving detainees passed through a metal detector and waited in a group holding cell for a more thorough search. When they left the holding cell, they were instructed to remove their clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband.

Apparently without touching the detainees, an officer looked at their ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arms, armpits, and other body openings.

Petitioner alleges he was required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough in a squatting position as part of the process. After a mandatory shower, during which his clothes were inspected, petitioner was admitted to the facility.

He was released the next day, when the charges against him were dismissed. Petitioner sued the governmental entities that operated the jails, one of the wardens, and certain other defendants.

Seeking relief under 42 U. Rather, he contended, officials could conduct this kind of search only if they had reason to suspect a particular inmate of concealing a weapon, drugs, or other contraband. The District Court certified a class of individuals who were charged with a nonindictable offense under New Jersey law, processed at either the Burlington County or Essex County jail, and directed to strip naked even though an officer had not articulated any reasonable suspicion they were concealing contraband.

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the procedures described by the District Court struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the security needs of the two jails. The case proceeds on the understanding that the officers searched detainees prior to their admission to the general population, as the Court of Appeals seems to have assumed.

Petitioner has not argued this factual premise is incorrect.Most Common Text: Click on the icon to return to regardbouddhiste.com and to enjoy and benefit. the of and to a in that is was he for it with as his on be at by i this had not are but from or have an they which one you were all her she there would their we him been has when who will no more if out so up said what its about than into them can only other time new some could these two may first then do.

Case opinion for US Supreme Court FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL.. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

in favor of the Board of Freeholders. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Alito joined the opinion in full, while Justice Thomas joined as to all but Part IV.

albert w. florence, petitioner v.

Florence vs board of chosen freeholders of county of burlington et al essay

BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit.

Board of Chosen Freeholders, U.S. (), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is .

Mar 01,  · New topic florence v board of chosen freeholders case brief is quite a rare and popular topic for writing an essay, but it Case and Citation Florence v Board Of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, U.S._ Albert Florence was the plaintiff in this case against the county of Burlington.

Facts Albert Florence was kept in jail for.

Florence Samples of Essay, Topics & Paper Examples on StudentShare | Page 2