¶ … long-term impact of Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders. This will be accomplished by: studying the parties involved, discussing the facts of the case, identifying the constitutional issues, examining the decision in terms of the vote, the opinion of the court, the dissenting views and the significance of the case. Once this takes place, is when we can provide specific insights that will illustrate how this will affect the way law enforcement is interacting with prisoners. In criminal law, there are those decisions that will have a dramatic impact upon the way law enforcement is interacting with suspects. Sometimes, there are certain cases that will give the police the power to use greater amounts of authority. When this happens, there is a transformation in how different constitutional ideas are interpreted and utilized.

A recent example of this can be seen by looking no further than the Supreme Court case Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders. This is focusing on the rights of law enforcement officials to strip search criminal suspects they have in custody. To fully understand the implications of this case requires: studying the parties involved, discussing the facts of the case, identifying the constitutional issues, examining the decision in terms of the vote, the opinion of the court, the dissenting views and the significance of the case. Together, these elements will highlight the long-term implications of this decision. ("Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders," 2011)

Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders (10-945)

The Parties Involved

This case involves the plaintiff (Albert Florence) alleging that the Burlington County Jail and Essex Correctional...

What happened is Florence was arrested in March 2005 on a bench warrant out of Essex County. This was for a delinquent fine that he had paid two days earlier. Yet, the records were not updated to reflect these changes. ("Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders," 2011)
As a result, Florence was arrested and taken to the Burlington Country Jail. This is when he was subject to the first strip search. Once he was transferred to the Essex Correctional Facility, is the point that was forced to go through a second strip search. These tactics were a part of the approved policies and procedures for the Board of Chosen Freeholders (who controlled both facilities). They are the defendant in the case. ("Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders," 2011)

The Facts of the Case

At the heart of his argument, is if having prisoners disrobe in front of corrections officers is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights (i.e. prohibition of unusual search and seizures). The U.S. District Court in New Jersey determined that this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This gave prisoners the right to join together in class action law suits for possible violations. ("Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders," 2011)

However, after reviewing the case on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals found that blanket prisoner strips searches were not a violation of the Constitution. This is because corrections officers have the right to protect themselves against contraband and possible weapons. When someone is arrested, they automatically fall under this classification (which means that any kinds of strip searches are legal). The Supreme Court…