'Turn Around', 'Bend Over', 'Squat', and 'Cough': The Supreme Court Strips the Fourth Amendment 'Naked' in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

Abstract

This case note criticizes the Supreme Court’s decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County. of Burlington, 132 U.S 1510 (2012), which held that under the Fourth Amendment, jail administrators can require all arrestees admitted to the general population of a jail to undergo a visual strip/cavity search, even for minor offenses and even without reasonable suspicion to believe the arrestee is in possession of a concealed weapon or contraband. Particularly, the case note follows a historical development of the Fourth Amendment and the complexity of defining reasonable searches by circuit courts. Additionally, it examines the “tug of war” among the circuits leading up to the Florence decision. Furthermore, it explores the inconsistent and mixed applications of Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), to Fourth Amendment jail-strip-search cases by circuit courts. Bell considered for the first time the constitutionality of a search performed on a pre-trial detainee inside prison walls vis-a-vis a blanket strip-search jail policy. In addition to providing a detailed explanation of the facts, procedural history, and disposition of the Florence case, including all concurring and dissenting opinions, this note further analyzes and critiques Florence’s questionable holding and rationale. Specifically, it addresses three distinct issues: (1) the Supreme Court’s failure to address the manner of the strip searches, which could in turn transform arrestees into victims of sexual violence and abuse; (2) the Supreme Court’s failure to consider current state laws and federal policies requiring reasonable suspicion to strip search a prison detainee; and (3) the Supreme Court’s troublesome conclusion that blanket strip-search policies actually serve as an effective deterrent against weapon and contraband concealment by prison detainees.