Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

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

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedurePropertyTortsFourth AmendmentJail intake searchesPretrial detention

Facts

Albert Florence was arrested during a traffic stop because an old bench warrant remained in a statewide computer database even though he had paid the underlying fine. He was taken first to the Burlington County Detention Center, where jail procedures required arrestees to shower with a delousing agent and disrobe so officers could inspect for scars, marks, tattoos, and contraband; he then interacted with other inmates and shared a cell. After six days he was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility, where arriving detainees removed their clothing for a visual inspection of body areas and openings, showered, and had their clothes inspected before being admitted. Florence challenged these searches as unconstitutional for detainees arrested for minor offenses absent reasonable suspicion that they were concealing contraband.

Issue

Whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit jail officials from requiring every arrestee who will be admitted to the general jail population to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed unless officials have reasonable suspicion that the particular detainee is concealing weapons or other contraband. More specifically, the question was whether minor offenders must be exempted from these intake procedures absent individualized suspicion.

Rule

When an arrestee will be admitted to the general population of a jail, the Constitution does not require correctional officials to exempt detainees arrested for minor offenses from a close visual inspection while undressed absent reasonable suspicion. In evaluating such jail-security policies, courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence that the policy is an unnecessary, unjustified, or exaggerated response to security problems.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, officers arrest Lena Ortiz for failing to appear on a municipal littering citation. At the Franklin Metro Detention Center, jail policy requires every incoming detainee assigned to the general population to remove clothing for a close visual inspection for wounds, tattoos, and concealed items before showering and placement in a shared housing unit.

Lena brings a §1983 action arguing the policy is unconstitutional as applied to her because she was arrested for only a minor, nonviolent offense and officers had no reasonable suspicion that she was hiding contraband. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that correctional officials may require a detainee who will be admitted to the general jail population to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed without a reasonable-suspicion exception for minor offenders. The seriousness of the offense is not a constitutionally required dividing line, and courts defer to jail officials absent substantial evidence that the policy is unnecessary or unjustified. (Derived from Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington (2012).)