Talk:Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law C‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page title

Because this decision is so fresh, it's difficult to determine what the proper page title should be. There are a few options. For now, I just chose Florence v. County of Burlington and made the following page titles redirects:

It may make sense to move the page at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the third option, per the actual title in the slip decision and the convention of shortening such names (e.g. Pickering v. Board of Education and, of course, Brown v. Board of Education. It's likely that that's how the case will be known in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed the title, but I have changed the beginning of the article, using the exact wording used by the government at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf rather than the abbreviated form. How do we know that it will be known as Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders rather than Florence v. Burlington, which seems to be the currently used title in the press? Kdammers (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the lead back. It makes me happy when the lead, the infobox's "Litigants" parameter, and the page title are in sync. The full case name is available in the infobox. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One child

According to a 2011 article in the NYT," Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled it over for speeding. His wife, April, was driving. His 4-year-old son, Shamar, was in the back." Where did the figure of three children come from? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.16.86 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to this question here.

I took another look at the briefs in this case last night. One of the briefs mentions that they now have three children. I'm not sure if they had three when the incident occurred. This may be where the Christian Science Monitor got its figure.

It's also unclear to me who was driving from reading the briefs. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much is unclear, but the NYT, ACLU and NPR indicate that Mrs. Florence was driving and that only one child was in the car. Is there any source other than the CSM that indicates otherwise? I couldn't find any clarification in the govt.'s court decision. NPR's transcript of the report by Nina Totenberg has a sound bit from Mr. Florence following its description, but I don't know if he actually interacted with the person reporting or whether it was just fused in. Kdammers (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Mrs. Florence was driving the car and there was one child passenger. –

Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 20:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Is there any source other than the CSM that indicates otherwise?":

Albert Florence, a finance director for a car dealership, was driving his wife and three children in his new BMW in 2005 when he was stopped by a New Jersey state trooper. Florence was handcuffed, put under arrest and taken to jail because of an outstanding warrant. It was all a mistake. His fine had been paid.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-strip-20120403,0,6228353.story

In 2005, Albert Florence was riding in the passenger seat as his wife drove him and one of their three children to her mother's house for dinner. A New Jersey state trooper pulled the car over and arrested Florence under a civil contempt order for failure to pay a fine that he had, in fact, paid in full. Over the course of six days, he was taken to two county jails and strip searched upon entry to each, even though there was no reason to suspect that he was carrying any contraband that threatened jailhouse security, let alone that he was guilty of any criminal offense.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/supreme-court-strip-search-jail-inmates-anthony-kennedy_n_1369532.html

The case arose out of the events of March 3, 2005, when April Florence was driving her husband, Albert, and their three children to her mother’s house for a family celebration and was pulled over by state police in Burlington County, New Jersey. During the stop, police confirmed that Albert Florence was wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant in Essex County.

Source: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni/uvalawyer/f11/opinion.htm

In 2005, Albert Florence was riding in the passenger seat as his wife drove him and one of their three children to her mother's house for dinner. A New Jersey state trooper pulled the car over and arrested Florence under a civil contempt order for failure to pay a fine that he had, in fact, paid in full.

Source: http://www.dailypaul.com/224641/strip-search-nation

That list cite seems less reliable than the others. But in any case, it's an interesting point whether he was driving; not sure the number of kids is really relevant, except as a good example of differing reports of the same story. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]