-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2012 Article published in the free PATC / LLRMI E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
心里与心理的区别
VISUAL STRIP SEARCHES AT JAIL INTAKE
OF PERSONS BEING PLACED IN GENERAL
PATC Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute 5235 Decatur Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46241
Article Source: /articles/legal_update/2012_us_florence.shtml
Printable Version: /weeklyarticles/print/2012_us_florence.pdf
©2012 Jack Ryan , Co-Director, PATC Legal & Liability Risk
Management Institute ()
In Florence v. Board of Chon Freeholders of the County of
Burlington i the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not jails can strip arch all persons to be booked into general
population, no matter how minor the offen, and without reasonable suspicion to believe they were hiding contraband or weapons. The Cour t’s syllabus outlined the facts relating to the strip arches of Florence as follows: In 1998, ven years before the incidents at issue, petitioner Albert Florence was arrested
after fleeing from police officers in Esx County, New Jery. He was charged with
obstruction of justice and u of a deadly weapon. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two
lesr offens and was ntenced to pay a fine in monthly installments. In 2003, after he
宝贝的英文va读音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
databa.
Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jery, petitioner and his wife were stopped in
their automobile by a state trooper. Bad 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 Esx County
Correctional Facility. It is not the arrest or confinement but the arch process at each jail
that gives ri 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. (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 Esx County Correctional Facility, where petitioner was taken after six days, is the
largest county jail in New Jery. It admits more than 25,000 inmates each year and
hous about 1,000 gang members at any given time. When petitioner was transferred
there, all arriving detainees pasd through a metal detector and waited in a group holding
cell for a more thorough arch. 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, no, mouth,
hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arms, armpits, and other body openings. This policy applied
regardless of the circumstances of the arrest, the suspected offen, or the detainee's
behavior, demeanor, or criminal history. 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 relead the next day, when the charges against him were dismisd.
中德翻译
[cites omitted]
As a result of the two strip arches, Florence filed a lawsuit. The ca made its way to the United States Supreme Court after the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that all persons being placed into a jail’s general population could be strip arched without reasonable suspicion that they were hiding weapons or contraband and irrespective of the nature of their offen. The United States Supreme Court outlined the question prented as follows:
This ca prents the question of what rules, or limitations, the Constitution impos on
arches of arrested persons who are to be held in jail while their cas are being
gzipprocesd. The term "jail" is ud here in a broad n to include prisons and other
detention facilities. 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 clo visual inspection
新东方英语教学视频
while undresd. [cites omitted]
The Court began its analysis by recognizing, as it had in previous decisions that the courts should pay deference to the decisions of corrections officials in their efforts to maintain order and curity in jail facilities. Citing prior decisions the Court pointed out that the decisions of corrections officials should be upheld when they rve a legitimate penological interest.
The Court wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------©2012 Article published in the free PATC / LLRMI E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
Maintaining institutional curity and prerving internal order and discipline are esntial goals that may require limitation or retraction of retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees. The task of determining whether a policy is reasonably related to legitimate curity interests is peculiarly within the province and professional experti of corrections officials. T
his Court has repeated the admonition that, in the abnce of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their respon to the considerations courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters.
In many jails officials ek to improve curity by requiring some kind of strip arch of everyone who is to be detained. The procedures have been ud in different places throughout the country, from Cranston, Rhode Island, to Sapulpa, Oklahoma, to Idaho Falls, Idaho. [cites omitted]
The Court outlined the dangers of not allowing strip arches at intake:
Correctional officials have a significant interest in conducting a thorough arch as a standard part of the intake process. The admission of inmates creates numerous risks for facility staff, for the existing detainee population, and for a new detainee himlf or herlf.
The danger of introducing lice or contagious infections, for example, is well documented…
Persons just arrested may have wounds or other injuries requiring immediate medical attention. It may be difficult to identify and treat the problems until detainees remove their clothes for a visual inspection…Jails and prisons also face grave threats pod by the increasing number of gang memb
ers who go through the intake process…The groups recruit new members by force, engage in assaults against staff, and give other inmates a reason to arm themlves. Fights among feuding gangs can be deadly, and the officers who must maintain order are put in harm's way. The considerations provide a reasonable basis to justify a visual inspection for certain tattoos and other signs of gang affiliation as part of the intake process. The identification and isolation of gang members before they are admitted protects everyone in the facility…Detecting contraband concealed by new detainees, furthermore, is a most rious responsibility. Weapons, drugs, and alcohol all disrupt the safe operation of a jail. Correctional officers have had to confront arrestees concealing knives, scissors, razor blades, glass shards, and other prohibited items on their person, including in their body cavities…The u of drugs can embolden inmates in aggression toward officers or each other; and, even apart from their u, the trade in the substances can lead to violent confrontations.
There are many other kinds of contraband. The text-book definition of the term covers any Everyday items can undermine curity if introduced into a detention facility…Something as simple as an overlooked pen can po a significant danger.
Inmates commit more than 10,000 assaults on correctional staff every year and many more among t
hemlves…Contraband creates additional problems becau scarce items, including currency, have value in a jail's culture and underground economy. Correctional officials inform us "[t]he competition . . . for such goods begets violence, extortion, and disorder…Gangs exacerbate the problem. They orchestrate thefts, commit assaults, and approach inmates in packs to take the contraband from the weak. This puts the entire facility, including detainees being held for a brief term for a minor offen, at risk. Gangs -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------©2012 Article published in the free PATC / LLRMI E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
do coerce inmates who have access to the outside world, such as people rving their
ugatime on the weekends, to sneak things into the jail.
It is not surprising that correctional officials have sought to perform thorough arches at
intake for dia, gang affiliation, and contraband. Jails are often crowded, unsanitary,
橘子的英文and dangerous places. There is a substantial interest in preventing any new inmate, either
of his own will or as a result of coercion, from putting all who live or work at the
institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted to the general population.
Florence argued that persons arrested for minor offens should not be subject to strip arches. The Court responded:
It is reasonable, however, for correctional officials to conclude this standard would be
unworkable. The record provides evidence that the riousness of an offen is a poor
predictor of who has contraband and that it would be difficult in practice to determine
whether individual detainees fall within the propod exemption…People detained for
minor offens can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals…Experience
shows that people arrested for minor offens have tried to smuggle prohibited items into
jail, sometimes by using their rectal cavities or genitals for the concealment. They may
have some of the same incentives as a rious criminal to hide contraband. A detainee
might risk carrying cash, cigarettes, or a penknife to survive in jail. Others may make a保持联络英文
quick decision to hide unlawful substances to avoid getting in more trouble at the time of
their arrest. This record has concrete examples…
Even if people arrested for a minor offen do not themlves wish to introduce
contraband into a jail, they may be coerced into doing so by others…This could happen
any time detainees are held in the same area, including in a van on the way to the station
or in the holding cell of the jail. If, for example, a person arrested and detained for unpaid
traffic citations is not subject to the same arch as others, this will be well known to other
detainees with jail experience. A hardened criminal or gang member can, in just a few
minutes, approach the person and coerce him into hiding the fruits of a crime, a weapon,
or some other contraband…Exempting people arrested for minor offens from a
standard arch protocol thus may put them at greater risk and result in more contraband
being brought into the detention facility…This is a substantial reason not to mandate the
exception [Florence] eks as a matter of constitutional law…
It also may be difficult, as a practical matter, to classify inmates by their current and prior
offens before the intake arch. Jails can be even more dangerous than prisons
becau officials there know so little about the people they admit at the outt.
The Court concluded by upholding the blanket strip arch policy at issue. The Court noted that this was not a ca where officers intentionally humiliated a prisoner; it was not a ca involving touching; and it was not a ca where the prisoner was held by themlves for a short period of time without ever being placed in general population.
In upholding the right of jail officials to strip arch all persons entering general population irrespective of how minor their offen and without reasonable suspicion, the Court has in one broad -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------©2012 Article published in the free PATC / LLRMI E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
sweep changed the manner in which jails and prisons throughout the country may conduct arches in the booking process.
It is important to note that this was a five to four decision. Two of the majority votes, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito added some points that jail administrators should consider. In a concurring opinion written by Justice Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, it was pointed out that the opinion in this ca allowed for the Visual Strip Search of all individuals who were being placed in general population.
Justice Alito described the Visual Strip Search as follows: “officers may direct the arrestees to disrobe, shower, and submit to a visual inspection. As part of the inspection, the arrestees may be required to manipulate their bodies.”
Justice Alito further pointed out that there may be cas where a strip arch is unreasonable: It is important to note, however, that the Court does not hold that it is always reasonable to
conduct a full strip arch of an arrestee who detention has not been reviewed by a
judicial officer and who could be held in available facilities apart from the general
population. Most of tho arrested for minor offens are not dangerous, and most are
relead from custody prior to or at the time of their initial appearance before a magistrate.
In some cas, the charges are dropped. In others, arrestees are relead either on their
own recognizance or on minimal bail. In the end, few are ntenced to incarceration. For
the persons, admission to the general jail population, with the concomitant humiliation of
a strip arch, may not be reasonable, particularly if an alternative procedure is feasible. Thus, the concurrence takes the position that some minor offenders should never make it into general population and thus never be strip arched.
The Court has authorized jail officials to visually strip arch all individuals who are going to be placed in general population.
Jails should consider, bad upon the concurring opinions in this ca, whether minor offenders can be held parately in the short term until their relea such that a strip arch is unnecessary.
Bad on the concurrence if a jail holds all pre-trial detainees parately, and there is no intermingling, the rule announced in this ca may not apply.
i Florence v. Board of Chon Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2712 (April 2, 2012).
柯婕特的肖像-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------©2012 Article published in the free PATC / LLRMI E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
