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

Florence v. Board Of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington - Essay Example He was also ordered to lift his genitals and finally take a shower. The Respondent spent six days at BCJ before he was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility, the second Respondent. At Essex, the Respondent alleges that he went through another strip search, which entailed the removal of clothing, opening his mouth, squatting, lifting his genitals, coughing, and showering in the full glare of officers. The charges brought against Florence were dismissed after he arrived at Essex, and the Petitioner was released from the correctional facility. Florence filed suit against the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington and Essex on July 19, 2005 on behalf of detainees booked for minor offences at the two correctional facilities since 2003 that underwent strip searches. He alleged that the search policies of the facilities executed on a general basis violate the search and seizure protection outlined in the Fourth Amendment. A District Court issued a summary judgment to the petitioner, a former detainee in the 42 U.S.C.S. Â §1983 action filed against defendant jail officers in which he alleged violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court decided that strip searches on non-indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the District Court’s decision was reversed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted Certiorari. The Court reached the conclusion that the chances of a prisoner possessing contraband cannot effectively be determined based on the arrestee’s history or the severe nature of current offences. The Court gave the example of Timothy McVeigh’s arrest in which a person who commits a minor offence is capable of serious violence. Moreover, correctional facilities have