Criminal Law Terms - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages

Thereafter he was shifted to the correctional facility at Essex where he again underwent the same check and was also made to lift his genitals, squat, and cough. He was released the next day when it was confirmed that he had paid the fine. He sued BCJ and ECCF under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case primarily challenged the authority of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to strip search procedure on minor offenses. The court upheld the appeal that strip search in minor offenses violates the individual’s rights under Fourth Amendment. This verdict was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in 2012 and allows law authorities huge leverage to conduct searches, including strip searches even for minor offenses. The court verdict was supported by a 5-4 majority.

The main issue is that of rights granted to citizens of America under the Fourth Amendment which challenges jail authorities to conduct strip searches of individuals arrested for minor offenses without solid reasons. The privacy rights of individuals are therefore at stake.

42 U.S.C. § 1983, popularly known as Section 1983, provides citizens of the United States, as injured parties in the court of law, to sue and claim redress for violations of their rights, privileges, and immunities as granted by the Constitution and Laws of the nation.

The Fourth Amendment promotes privacy rights and explicitly forbids the search of individuals including their persons, house, paper, and effects which violates rights to be secure and says that no warrants shall be issued unless supported by oath and affirmation. Thus, authorities can search only when they have reasonable suspicion or affirmation of the facts that the individual has violated the law.

The case is important because it questions the validity of the Fourth Amendment and defines the parameters of the rights of citizens under it. The verdict supported the strip search. The petitioner contended that a minor offense, which did not apply, was not sufficient reason for the humiliating strip search that he had undergone twice within seven days in Burlington jail and Essex correctional center. Section 1983 and the fourth amendment, both call for reasonable suspicion for a search. Indeed, the rights of citizens under the Fourth Amendment have been controversial for a long. Supreme Court has yet to analyze and define the reasonable clauses that justify the rights of citizens under the Fourth Amendment for strip searches in jails and detention centers.

In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, the Supreme Court verdict upheld the legitimacy of a strip search and declared that detention centers must have substantial power to maintain safety and order in place. They also maintained that the threat of contraband being brought inside the jail or detention facilities is a critical issue that substantially outweighs the privacy interests of the detainees or the petitioner.

It can be argued that reasonable suspicion is an important ingredient that needs to be considered within the wider scope of the fourth amendment and was also considered in this case. The petitioner was already once arrested in 1998 in Essex for fleeing police and charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. He was fined when he pled guilty. In 2005, he was arrested for defaulting on the fine, which was already paid but somehow not updated in the record. The petitioner was not searched in the police station but in the Burlington jail when was to share his cell with others. Thus, for security purposes, the search was necessary. ...Download file to see next pages Read More