J. B. v. James Fassnacht
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16404
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders established blanket strip searches for arrestees admitted to general population; this case extends question to juveniles in a juvenile detention center.
- Twelve-year-old J.B. was detained at LYIC after alleged terroristic threats and harassment; he underwent a strip search under LYIC policy.
- LYIC policy requires unclothed search to look for injuries, signs of abuse, or contraband, with privacy curtain and minimal touching.
- District Court denied summary judgment on false arrest/strip search claims, rejecting a per se juvenile exception and applying reasonable-suspicion analysis if Florence did not apply.
- Plaintiffs certified an interlocutory appeal to determine whether Florence applies to juveniles and whether LYIC’s blanket policy is constitutionally permissible.
- Court reverses, holding Florence applies to juvenile detainees and LYIC’s blanket strip search policy is constitutional under penological interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Florence apply to juvenile detainees? | Florence is limited to adults and does not control juveniles. | Florence is broad and governs all detainees, including juveniles. | Yes; Florence applies to juvenile detainees. |
| Are juvenile privacy interests outweighed by security risks in LYIC? | Juveniles have enhanced privacy rights that outweigh security concerns. | Security and prevention of contraband justify blanket searches for juveniles. | Penological interests outweigh juvenile privacy interests. |
| Is individualized reasonable-suspicion needed for juveniles before blanket strip searches? | An individualized inquiry is feasible and required. | A blanket policy is required for institutional practicality and safety. | Individualized inquiry is impractical; blanket policy upheld. |
| Is LYIC’s blanket strip-search policy constitutional for juveniles admitted to general population? | Policy intrudes on privacy; alternative less invasive methods exist. | Policy is necessary to prevent contraband and protect safety. | Policy upheld as reasonably related to penological interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2011) (upheld blanket strip searches at intake for detainees to prevent contraband and ensure safety)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (upheld blanket searches; practicality of individualized inquiries rejected)
- Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984) (allowed broad restrictions to maintain institutional security)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (upheld random searches; deterrence of contraband may trump privacy)
- N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004) (juvenile strip search under special needs/expanded privacy considerations)
- Smook v. Minnehaha County, 457 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2006) (recognition of heightened privacy interest for juveniles in strip searches)
- Safford Unified School Dist. v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (school context strip search; different standard for students vs detainees)
- T.S. v. Doe, 742 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2013) (juvenile detention context; discussed applicability of Florence to juveniles)