We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
FLORENCE V. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS: THE RESURRECTION OF BELL V. WOLFISH AND THE QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW.
- Authors
Ellis, Julian
- Abstract
The balance between Fourth Amendment rights and strip search polices in a correctional setting has garnered limited attention from the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, the interpretation of Supreme Court precedent by circuit courts has been inconsistent, and at times irreconcilable, with the governing standards. In upholding the strip search policies at issue in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Court sought to add clarity to the existing law and reign in circuits that had expanded the Court's precedent beyond established measures. The Florence Court premised its decision primarily on the need for deference to correctional expertise and the security concerns that invasive strip search policies seek to preclude. Furthermore, in the face of a highly critical dissent, the Court declined to adopt the majority of circuits' view that a heighted standard of suspicion is required to justify a strip search. Although the Florence majority's holding may seem harsh on its face because of the degrading nature of invasive strip searches, the Court's decision is consistent with the standards promulgated in Bell v. Wolfish and ensures the protection of many over the rights of a single individual. This Comment concludes that the Court's holding promotes adaptive, rather than reactive, policies in the hands of those with the greatest expertise. Moreover, blanket strip search policies protect those incarcerated by both subjecting arrestees to the same, consistent policy and by eliminating forms of dangerous contraband. Finally, although the strip search policies were upheld in Florence, there are potential mitigating factors that will have to be addressed in the coming years. This Comment opines that both the presence of alternative holding facilities and the emergence of new technologies represent the most viable mechanisms for dampening the perceived harshness of the Court's holding. However, the Court's refusal to define such factors in Florence provides little guidance to circuit courts and encourages them to continue to push the boundaries of Bell, and now Florence.
- Subjects
UNITED States; SEARCHES &; seizures (Law); UNITED States. Supreme Court; BELL v. Wolfish (Supreme Court case); ACTIONS &; defenses (Law); STRIP searches; CONSTITUTIONAL law
- Publication
Denver University Law Review, 2012, Vol 90, Issue 2, p559
- ISSN
0883-9409
- Publication type
Article