University of Michigan Law School
The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Florence v. County of Burlington JC-NJ-0022
Docket / Court 1-05-cv-03619-JHR-JS ( D.N.J. )
State/Territory New Jersey
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Case Summary
The plaintiff in this case was arrested erroneously on a warrant for failure to pay for a traffic violation; in fact, he had already paid. He was then booked into jail, and strip searched. He brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking relief under 42 ... read more >
The plaintiff in this case was arrested erroneously on a warrant for failure to pay for a traffic violation; in fact, he had already paid. He was then booked into jail, and strip searched. He brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches. He maintained that persons arrested for a minor offense could not be required to remove their clothing and expose their genitals to close visual inspection as a routine part of the intake process. Rather, he contended--as had been held by most of the federal Courts of Appeals--officials could conduct this kind of search only if they had reason to suspect a particular jail prisoner of concealing a weapon, drugs, or other contraband.

The District Court certified a class of individuals who were charged with a nonindictable offense under New Jersey law, processed at either the Burlington County or Essex County jail, and directed to strip naked even though an officer had not articulated any reasonable suspicion they were concealing contraband. After discovery, in February 2009, the court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the unlawful search claim. It concluded that any policy of strip searching nonindictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment. 595 F.Supp.2d 492 (D. N.J. 2009) (Judge Joseph Rodriguez); the district court certified the issue to the 3d Circuit for immediate review. 657 F.Supp.2d 504 (D. N.J. 2009).

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding in an opinion by Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman that the procedures described by the District Court struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the security needs of the two jails. 621 F.3d 296 (2010).

The federal Courts of Appeals had split on the question whether the Fourth Amendment allowed what are usually referred to as "blanket" strip search policies, in which no individualized suspicion need exist to justify a strip search of an arrestee. In a 5-4 opinion, with the majority by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court took the position that--at least if a prisoner was about to be housed in a jail's general population--no such individualized suspicion is required, no matter how minor the arrest offense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit opinion.

Back at the District Court, Judge Rodriguez had stayed further activity in the case pending first the appeal and then Supreme Court review. It remains to be seen (as of the date of this summary) if any aspect of the case will continue.

- 05/03/2012

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Search policies
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) County of Burlington, New Jersey
Essex Couny
Plaintiff Description From two years before this action until its termination date, all committed to Burlington or Essex county jails on charges not involving drugs, weapons or felony violence subjected to strip search without individualized finding of reasonable suspicion.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies After Decision: Implementation of Judicial Decrees in Correctional Settings
Written: Oct. 01, 1977
By: M. Kay Harris & Dudley P. Spiller (Temple University)
Citation: (1977)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

1:05−cv−03619 (D.N.J.) 04/25/2011
JC-NJ-0022-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
JC-NJ-0022-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Opinion 02/04/2009 (595 F.Supp.2d 492) (D.N.J.)
JC-NJ-0022-0003 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Memorandum Opinion and Order (certifying to Third Circuit) 06/30/2009 (657 F.Supp.2d 504) (D.N.J.)
JC-NJ-0022-0004 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion (3rd Cir.) 09/21/2010 (621 F.3d 296)
JC-NJ-0022-0001 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (SCOTUS) 04/22/2012 (132 S.Ct. 1510)
JC-NJ-0022-0002 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Supreme Court website
Judges Hardiman, Thomas M. (W.D. Pa., Third Circuit)
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (Ninth Circuit, Supreme Court)
Pollak, Louis Heilprin (E.D. Pa.)
Rodriguez, Joseph H. (D.N.J.)
JC-NJ-0022-0003 | JC-NJ-0022-0004 | JC-NJ-0022-9000
Schneider, Joel Court not on record [Magistrate]
Sloviter, Dolores Korman (Third Circuit)
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Calabro, Michael V. (New Jersey)
JC-NJ-0022-0005 | JC-NJ-0022-9000
Lask, Susan Chana (New York)
JC-NJ-0022-0005 | JC-NJ-0022-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Didonato, J. Brooks (New Jersey)
Ruddy, Alan R. (New Jersey)
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -
The Clearinghouse has been generously supported by the National Science Foundation.