In the Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington case, the appeals court ruled that the plaintiff could beA. arrested for symbolic speech because his actions constituted an...
In the Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington case, the appeals court ruled that the plaintiff could be
A. arrested for symbolic speech because his actions constituted an imminent threat to public safety
B. strip searched after a minor offense he didn’t commit because jail security outweigh an individual’s privacy rights
C. strip searched because the suspect’s conduct gave the police a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed
D. released from jail because he was not given his Miranda rights prior to being placed in the jail population
E. released from jail due to police misconduct, which included forcing the suspect to lift his genitals during a strip search
thanks so much!
The correct answer to this question is Option B. Option C is close, but it is not right. The other options have nothing to do with the case.
In this case, the Court had to decide whether a person could be strip searched when being processed into a jail even if there was no reason to believe that the person had any contraband on their person. This means that Option C cannot be right because Option C talks about the need for a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
In this case, the Court said that jails have a strong interest in keeping contraband out so that inmates and staff can be secure. It said that a strip search was a legal way to try to protect this interest, regardless of whether there was any reason to believe that the person was carrying contraband. Therefore, Option B is the best answer.