Legal Brief is a written procedural argument of the case in court of law. It outlines court orders during a case in a manner that is easy to understand. Legal Brief is categorized into Appellate Brief and Student Brief according to state laws (Tomkovicz & White, 2012, p.23). Appellate Brief contains records of court proceedings of the case in an Appellate Court while Student Brief is a short analysis of case proceedings that is used for the purpose of learning. In this case, we are going to consider the Student Brief for the purpose of analysis of the case of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 566 U.S. (2012).
FLORENCE v. BOARDD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, 566 U.S. (2012)
Albert W. FLORENCE, Plaintiff-Appellate,
BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLIGNTON
Facts of the Case
Albert Florence was arrested for a traffic offence only to be discovered through a faulted police computer database that Florence has an outstanding warrant from Essex County. He detained for six days before being transferred to Essex from Burlington. Florence was strip-searched before his detention that he argued undermined his right(Tomkovicz & White,2012, p.67 ) Florence filled a suit against the two courts with respect to the unreasonable search is subjected to even though he poses no insecurity to the state.
The court in its decision reversed the appellate.
Does the Essex and Burlington status violate the human right by allowing their official to undertake a strip-search on persons arrested of an offence even if there exist no suspicion that the person having contraband and no matter how small the crime might be?
Vote: 5-4, No: the court held the decision that Essex and Burlington state did not violate human rights as the official may strip-search persons who are arrested before being handed over to jails. This is permitted even when there exists no suspicion of the offender having contraband.
The Court’s ruling was derived from two indifferent interests. These are;
- Protecting individual interesting against unreasonable strip-search where the person feels his rights are at a stake.
- Protecting the safety and security of the state that might be endangered by the accused person.
As a result of the two conflicting interest, the judges who voted in favor of the decision held the following reasons.
- The Court cited state safety and security over individual interest and so strip-search can just be done on persons accused of a criminal offence.
- The Judge argued that the accused was stopped by officer while driving without a license which amounted to a criminal offence.
- The Court emphasized on the discrepancies that might arise on state security in defense of individual’s interest.
- The Court also reasoned that evidence shows that there is no voluntary strip-search as none is ready for strip-search.
Four judges of the Court voted against the decision holding that no matter how important state security it, it should not exist at a point where persons status is abuse. They argued that the officers undermined Florence’s rights.
Individual interest of protecting his rights, as well as his societal status and national safety, are indifferent in law interpretations. Civil laws protect individual human right at the expense of state safety and laws.
An upper hand should be given to state security only at points where safety and security are endangered. Individual right is so important and should hence not be subjected to unreasonable search.
Tomkovicz, J. J., & White, W. S. (2012). Criminal procedure: Constitutional constraints upon investigation and proof. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.