566 U.S. 318, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012)
In 1998, Albert Florence was arrested in Essex County, New Jersey, after fleeing from police officers.1 He was charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon.2 Florence entered a plea of guilty to two lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine in monthly installments.3
In 2003, after he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.4 He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later, but the warrant remained in a statewide computer database.5
Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jersey, Florence and his wife were stopped in their automobile by a state trooper.6 Based on the outstanding warrant, the officer arrested Florence and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center, where he was held for six days before transfer to the Essex County Correctional Facility.7
Burlington County jail procedures required every arrestee to shower with a delousing agent.8 Officers would check arrestees for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as they disrobed.9 Florence claims he was also instructed to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals.10
The Essex County Correctional Facility admits more than 25,000 inmates each year.11 When Florence arrived, all arriving detainees passed through a metal detector and waited in a group holding cell.12 They were instructed to remove their clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband.13 An officer looked at their ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arms, armpits, and other body openings.14 Florence alleges he was required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough in a squatting position as part of the process.15 After a mandatory shower, during which his clothes were inspected, he was admitted to the facility.16 He was released the next day when the charges were dismissed.17
Florence sued the governmental entities that operated the jails, one of the wardens, and certain other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.18 He alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.19 The District Court certified a class of individuals charged with a nonindictable offense.20 Those individuals were processed at either jail and directed to strip naked even though an officer had not articulated any reasonable suspicion they were concealing contraband.21 After discovery, the court granted summary judgment on the unlawful search claim.22 A divided panel of the Third Circuit reversed.23
Whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments permit suspicionless visual strip searches of individuals arrested for minor offenses as a standard part of the intake process before their admission to the general population of a county jail?24
A regulation impinging on an inmate’s constitutional rights must be upheld if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.25 Correctional officials must be permitted to devise reasonable search policies to detect and deter the possession of contraband in their facilities.26 Courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment absent substantial evidence that the officials have exaggerated their response.27
Yes. The search procedures at the Burlington County Detention Center and the Essex County Correctional Facility struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions.28 The admission of new inmates creates risks for staff, the existing detainee population, and the new detainees themselves.29 Officials must screen for contagious infections, wounds requiring immediate medical attention, signs of gang affiliation, and concealed weapons, drugs, alcohol, and other prohibited items.30 Florence, arrested on a bench warrant for failure to pay a fine and held at both facilities before release the next day, was subjected to the same intake process as every other detainee.31
The seriousness of an offense is a poor predictor of who has contraband.32 It would be difficult to classify inmates by current and prior offenses before the intake search or to determine quickly whether any underlying offenses were serious enough to authorize a different protocol.33 Exempting people arrested for minor offenses from a standard search protocol may put them at greater risk and result in more contraband being brought into the detention facility.34 The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require adoption of the proposed framework requiring reasonable suspicion for such searches.35
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is affirmed; the search procedures do not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.36
Related opinions on this issue
The Court does not foreclose the possibility of an exception to the rule it announces.37 Factual nuances have not played a significant role as this case has been presented to the Court.38 Both courts below regarded acknowledged factual disputes as immaterial to their conflicting dispositions, and before this Court Florence challenged suspicionless strip searches no matter what the circumstances.39
The Court is nonetheless wise to leave open the possibility of exceptions, to ensure that we not embarrass the future.40
The Court holds that jail administrators may require all arrestees who are committed to the general population of a jail to undergo visual strip searches not involving physical contact by corrections officers.41 It is important to note, however, that the Court does not hold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could be held in available facilities apart from the general population.42 Most of those arrested for minor offenses are not dangerous, and most are released from custody prior to or at the time of their initial appearance before a magistrate.43
For these persons, admission to the general jail population, with the concomitant humiliation of a strip search, may not be reasonable, particularly if an alternative procedure is feasible.44
Joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, And Kagan
The visually invasive kind of strip search at issue here is an unreasonable search forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, unless prison authorities have reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual possesses drugs or other contraband.45 A strip search that involves a stranger peering without consent at a naked individual, and in particular at the most private portions of that person’s body, is a serious invasion of privacy.46 The lack of justification is fairly obvious with respect to detecting injuries or diseases and identifying gang tattoos.47
The searches already employed include pat-frisking, metal detectors, showering with delousing agents, and searching inmates’ clothing.48 There is no connection between the genital lift and the squat and cough and health or gang concerns.49 The empirical evidence from studies of 23,000 and 75,000 inmates shows very few instances of contraband recovered, most of which would have been detected by less invasive means or justified by reasonable suspicion.50
Professional bodies such as the American Correctional Association recommend against suspicionless strip searches.51