Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense

from the what-4th-amendment dept

The Supreme Court continues to chip away at whatever is left of the 4th Amendment. A ruling on Monday (with a close 5 to 4 vote) decided that jails can strip search those enrolled for pretty much any offense. However, the reasoning behind this was very suspect. In this case, it was a man who was mistakenly arrested (there was an erroneous warrant out for a fine which he had already paid).

The majority opinion, by Justice Kennedy, basically argues (1) that jails are really dangerous, so we have to search everyone and (2) that some bad people might be arrested for other things, and a strip search might find them out. Neither argument makes much sense when you think about it. As Amy Davidson writes at the New Yorker link above, if jails are so dangerous, why are we sending so many people there? Shouldn't we be working on that part? And as for the other part:
He mentions that one of the 9/11 hijackers got a speeding ticket, though not how strip-searching him might have stopped the attacks, or how many millions of speeders you need to sort through to find a terrorist. Never mind, Kennedy writes: “People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.”
And thus, let's strip search everyone!


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:02am

    How out of touch is the Supreme Court?

    Let me get this straight... We have 5 people that decide the lives of millions...

    So you can be strip searched in jail, even though violent crime has continued to decline. Further, you have the DoJ putting in more prisons and chipping away at our rights because the Supreme Court believes more in their ideology than in the rights of the people. The 4th Amendment was very aptly increased with teh Katz decision. Yet it seems that the Supreme Court has decided the people don't deserve much of anything in regards to a right to privacy.

    How is anyone supposed to take these decisions seriously? I'm sure that very few of the justices realize what their actions are doing. It's making the US surge in a possibly violent takeover. It's the last box that's gearing up to be used.

    I'm growing quite concerned with everything in the US right now... The austerity plan of Paul Ryan, the fact that the rich have gotten richer, SCOTUS is running roughshod over freedom, and the US has given in to tyranny in the name of "protecting" people that it's imposing its will by force on equates to a very sharp reaction in the near future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:49am

      Re: How out of touch is the Supreme Court?

      You sounds like a dangerous person, please report to the nearest strip-searching facility for our protection.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:56am

      Re: How out of touch is the Supreme Court?

      Careful. Anyone suggesting that the emperor is naked will be discovered to be a terrorist. You are free to exercise your rights in any way that doesn't conflict with the authority of the government and its prerogative to protect you from yourself. "Go back to bed America...You are free to do as we tell you."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      tay, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:00am

      Re: How out of touch is the Supreme Court?

      Hey its more protection for our law abiding correction officers.... those people that commit crimes obviously don't deserve to have rights that law abiding citizens do. Again the Katz case was also Protection for our law abiding police officers so they are protected. And the rich getting richer; well we could tax their capital gains.... and they wouldn't make nearly as much as they do now. Yes that would tax our capital gains but it would be very miniscule compared to theirs. So lets not care so much about prisoners and more about those who are following the law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:58am

      Re: How out of touch is the Supreme Court?

      We can treat folly with kindness . . . knowing that soon his wild spirit will quieten, and the foolishness will fall away to reveal a model citizen.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:41am

    the way things are going, no one will be allowed out or will all be too afraid of going out. at least that way, we wont have to worry about any future financial crises because no one will be working and we wont have to worry about downloading because, even though everyone will be stuck at home, no one will be able to afford to use the internet. haven't figured out yet what will happen to every other industry though, but am working on it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:45am

    According to most studies, 100% of terrorists eat food. All we need to do is set TSA checkpoints up outside every grocery store in America. We'll catch 'em for sure!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:49am

    The world is a dangerous place

    Strip searches for everyone!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:51am

    The is pants-on-head retarded.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:52am

    Um...

    I am 42 and when I was around 18, I got busted for "disorderly conduct" and upon being brought to a holding facility I was searched THOROUGHLY. A young Afro-american man cam in and snapped a rubber glove on. I said what you going to do with that? He said we have to check your orifices. I said why, its not like I have a joint up there and would smoke it even if it was. He laughed and said bend over and spread em. He just looked thank god. But getting your ass looked at for just sitting around (he heard "drag racers" and assumed that because I had an 81 Firebird and my buddy had a 73 Split Bumper Camaro, it must have been us)was way too much. I understand you dont want weapons and drugs in a holding cell, but IN MY ASS!!!!!!

    So no law needed to define this as it has been going on for a long time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 8:55am

    I think this ruling just made your worries about those airport body scanners negligible...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:36am

      Re:

      > I think this ruling just made your worries
      > about those airport body scanners negligible...

      Only if you plan on going to jail.

      It's amazing. I've managed to make it 45 years without every even coming close to be arrested for anything. And it's not even that hard. It's not like you have to really work at it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:53am

        Re: Re:

        And the government has noticed... with so many people never visiting a jail, they're coming up with more reasons to send you every day.

        All those privatized prisons have lobbyists too, you know.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Yoshord, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:07pm

        Re: Re:

        Just because you haven't been punished for it yet doesn't mean you haven't done three illegal things per day without realizing it and that you can't be charged for at any time.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:07pm

        Re: Re:

        Not that hard for some combinations of race and socio-economic background. For other combinations it's practically a certainty.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DOlz, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:20pm

        Re: Re:

        And this makes this ruling OK how?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:03am

    supreme-court-says-you-can-be-strip-searched-when-admitted-to-jails-any-offense

    Girlz,
    Get your pumps....we're off to the border!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TheStupidOne, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:06am

    Supreme Court justices can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:07am

    I'm beginning to think the Supreme Court is on a mission to make sure it loses all credibility within a decade or two. I mean look at all it's done lately.

    -Bush vs Gore. Making any ruling handing the election to either candidate is just asking for trouble. In the past the court was at least smart enough to defer to congress when some states wanted to take back their approval of the Equal Rights Amendment.

    -Allow strip searching for any reason, in a case where the person suing over it was wrongly arrested for a really minor thing. You think the outrage would be half as bad if the guy was say convicted of murder?

    -Overturn a century of established law to let billionaires and foreign corporations spend unlimited amounts of money to influence US elections. Way to make people love you, allow interest groups to spend way more money corrupting and buying off our politicians, and allow 3rd party groups to annoy us around election time with 5 times the number of negative ads we used to see.

    -Effectively banning all class action lawsuits by saying clauses in contracts banning it is perfectly legal. This allows companies to screw consumers out of say 50 bucks they thought they wouldn't have to pay, because who's going to sue over 50 bucks? That's what class action lawsuits are for. Sure the people don't get much money in those suits, but that's because it's usually about a small amount of money a large group of people all lost.

    -It's looking like the court will likely repeal Obama's entire healthcare law, because in their own words, "it's just too much work to expect us to go through the entire law and figure out what's constitutional and what's not". Do you REALLY think a conservative majority would do the same thing if republicans passed Obamacare instead? (and keep in mind, Obamacare is nearly identical to the republican healthcare plan of the 1990's, including the individual mandate, met to make people take responsibility for themselves instead of shifting costs on the tax payer, because the government pays hospital bills for the uninsured, since hospitals can't refuse to treat them)

    -Siding with the white firefighters suing over racial discrimination, without outlining clear rules for employers. Now businesses have to worry about their white or minority group employees suing them based on who they promote.

    In the past the supreme court would at least be smart enough to outline clear rules when they made big rulings (like the 4/5's ruling on attempts at racial discrimination by requiring a high school degree to get a job, when most blacks in the area had none and most whites did), and would compromise with each other to get 7-2 and 8-1 and 9-0 decisions more often, and with rulings that were more likely to stand the test of time and not change when the judges on the court changed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:01am

      Re:

      the 90's healthcare plan? you mean Hillary Care? at least get your names right on who your trying to frame...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:09am

    supreme-court-says-you-can-be-strip-searched-when-admitted-to-jails-any-offense

    Get your pumps Girlz, We're hading to the border....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:18am

    Sure, someone busted for unpaid traffic tickets *could* be a serial killer, but is he much more likely to be a serial killer than the next guy who wasn't busted for unpaid parking tickets?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:20am

      Re: 'Cause

      Strip search wrongly arrested person many many times and he might be far likelier to become a serial killer...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      tay, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:03am

      Response to: crade on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:18am

      But that person can pass drugs and weapons to someone that is a serial killer... which would be unsafe for our law enforcement officers, correction officers and visitors

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:12am

        Re: Response to: crade on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:18am

        "But that person can pass drugs and weapons to someone that is a serial killer... which would be unsafe for our law enforcement officers, correction officers and visitors"

        Why yes, that WOULD be unsafe. So:

        1) Metal detectors.
        2) Jails and prisons are not the same place.
        3) Even within a jail OR prison you should not have a serial killer go anywhere near anyone else, and you should not have someone who is just waiting for the next available judge go anywhere near the general population.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Matthew (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:24am

    Guaranteed Abuse

    This will be the new go-to intimidation tactic. Someone needs to start compiling strip search statistics. (Do not insert the "with pictures" joke here - it's not as funny as you think it is.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Almost Anonymous (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:37am

      Re: Guaranteed Abuse

      Well, as a couple of people have noted above, it's not really new, but I agree it will probably become a lot more common.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:42am

      Re: Guaranteed Abuse

      This is exactly what I was thinking.

      You can already see the disdain the police have for the citizens they are supposed to protect in how they treated OWS. Just imagine all the OWS people who will be strip searched with the intent of physical abuse under the color of authority. It's not to say that all of them will suffer this, but the fact that anyone would suffer it for minor infractions such as civil disobedience, is total BS. Those people aren't even being put in the general population!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      FuzzyDuck, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:10am

      Re: Guaranteed Abuse

      Are Americans going to experience first hand the strip and humiliate practices that made Abu Ghraib famous? Including pictures?

      Apparently the US doesn't even need another country to invade them first before it comes to this.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:34am

    So a strip search of Tim would have found what? A Ryder truck? One of the terrorists would have a 747 in his shorts???

    Or they find a receipt and a ticket, so what? Helping a cousin move or flying a commuter flight pre 9/11 wasn't illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:46am

      Re:

      Logic and reason has no place in Politics. Please refrain from applying logic in future comments.

      Pay no mind what other voices say
      They don't care about you, like I do, (like I do)
      Safe from pain, and truth, and choice, and other poison devils,
      See, they don't give a fuck about you, like I do.

      Just stay with me,
      safe and ignorant, go,
      back to sleep, go
      back to sleep

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Altaree, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:50am

    isn't this limited to going to a real prison.

    This is how they limit people sneaking item into the general population of a prison. If there are exceptions, criminals will learn to abuse them. These are people that make weapons out of anything that can hold a point for a stab or two.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:44pm

      Re: isn't this limited to going to a real prison.

      "This is how they limit people sneaking item into the general population of a prison."

      What about the guards? Shouldn't they have their anus checked?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:58am

    Mike, I think you need to get a grip on reality.

    Anyone going into the jail system is potentially a source for contraband. If you specifically say "you won't search X or Y offenders" and then put them in a cell with more serious offends, you are risking mayhem.

    It's not hard to imagine gang members working hard to get stopped for a traffic offence, getting tossed in jail, and sneaking in weapons to use against other gang members in the jail at the time.

    If you are going to lock people up, you need to know they aren't armed and they aren't carrying drugs or contraband. Simple deal.

    The judges got this one 100% right. (well, 5 of them did).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Torg (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:20am

      Re:

      What the hell are they doing locking someone with a traffic violation up with a violent offender? That seems like a problem that should be addressed.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btr1701 (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:40am

        Re: Re:

        > What the hell are they doing locking someone
        > with a traffic violation up with a violent
        > offender?

        Ever been to the Twin Towers in LA? You get arrested, you get put in a big holding cell with 25-30 other arrestees. They don't segregate by type of offense. They segregate you by when you were arrested and when you have your initial appearance, so they can just grab everyone in the room and transport them over to court at the same time.

        And since you don't get to keep your street clothes anyway-- they give you a bright orange jumpsuit to wear-- this whole strip search thing is a whole lotts fuss over nothing, anyway.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:21am

      Re:

      So, why lock them up in the first place?
      This judgment seems to say that if we don't allow strip searches, it would be more difficult for police to do there job, so it must be constitutional.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Paul Hobbs (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      Seriously? A gang member deliberately gets done for running a red light (or 20), just so he can smuggle in a weapon to use against a rival gang member WHO IS ALREADY IN PRISON? If my enemy is in prison and I'm not in prison, doesn't that mean I've already won? I'd rather send my enemy a post card saying something pithy like "The weather is here, wish you were beautiful", or "Na-na-na-naaaa-na"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:01am

      Re:

      I was going to agree with you. But then I read the dissent, which reminded me of the case where someone was jailed for a seat belt violation, and this jailing was upheld by the Supreme Court. "They include individuals detained for such infractions as driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, or riding a bicycle without an audible bell."

      In these cases, I would argue that such an invasive search is improper because the search itself is worse than the maximum punishment that would be handed out even if they were found guilty.

      You say, "It's not hard to imagine gang members working hard to get stopped for a traffic offence, getting tossed in jail, and sneaking in weapons to use against other gang members in the jail at the time." To that, I would point out that they do have metal detectors. And they can also do a PARTIAL strip search and look for gang tatoos - the defense in the case conceded that stripping down to underwear was not unreasonable. And, really, they shouldn't be putting the dangerous criminals next to the traffic offense people in the first place.

      I would also like to point out that "Laws in at least 10 States prohibit suspicionless strip searches." Also, "At the same time at least seven Courts of Appeals have considered the question and have required reasonable suspicion that an arrestee is concealing weapons or contraband before a strip search of one arrested for a minor offense can take place." And the Federal Bureau of Prisons and US Marshalls also have policies against it. In other words, the policy of NOT strip searching everyone admitted to prison was already in place, and hadn't created total chaos.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:48am

      Re:

      I have to agree with the AC. According to this article:

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100042054/corruption-in-the-prison-serv ice-are-there-really-seven-bent-officers-in-every-prison/

      The price of drugs in prison is 1000x the price on the street. So if you stick an ounce of heroin: ($3000)

      http://forum.opiophile.org/archive/index.php/t-28510.html?s=8371fc2ed14263f315073ed5e24c047c)

      up your ass and smuggle it into the jail, it then is worth $3 million. Presumably, as it is diluted and broken down to retail amounts, the value is even greater.

      As drug activity is a major cause of further violence in prisons, I think that the courts have reached a reasonable decision. I'd imagine that such a search would be on par with a prostate exam. Certainly not pleasant, but not fatal. The technician places a hand on your shoulder and extends a finger into your rectum. Nothing to worry about unless of course you feel both of his hands on your shoulders.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 7:25pm

        Re: Re:

        Once again: Jails and prisons are not the same thing.

        I have no problem with a complete strip search of people admitted to PRISON. Prisons are where you go when you've been convicted of something serious and you're going to be there a long time. Jails are supposed to be for people who aren't going to be there for an extended stay - people who have not yet been to trial, or people serving 3 months for a misdemeanor, for example.

        And the extra-special searches may even be appropriate for someone accused of a violent crime, or even a drug offense if you're worried about drugs. But do you really, really think that a guy pulled over for a traffic offense who did not show up for a hearing to pay a fine (which he had already paid, but the police didn't know that at the time so it's kind of irrelevant) is going to have hidden something in a body cavity just in case he was pulled over and jailed?

        Given that the court has ruled that you can be jailed for ANY violation of the law even if conviction would not result in jail time, given this ruling, given that it is illegal to drive with a burnt out tail light, and given that tail lights can burn out without warning... doesn't this mean that any time you drive your car, you are pretty much saying it's OK for the cops to perform a cavity search on you? If this is not what you are saying, where exactly should the line be?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Given that the court has ruled that you can be jailed for ANY violation of the law even if conviction would not result in jail time, given this ruling, given that it is illegal to drive with a burnt out tail light, and given that tail lights can burn out without warning... doesn't this mean that any time you drive your car, you are pretty much saying it's OK for the cops to perform a cavity search on you? If this is not what you are saying, where exactly should the line be?

          I'd be interested to see you document a single instance where someone was jailed for driving with a burned out tail light and no other charges. I'll be waiting.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 1:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well that depends...
            Was the driver black in a southern town?
            Were the other charges trumped up like "resisting arrest" for asking a question about why the officer has your arm twisted up behind your back? Or maybe you were damaging property after the cop shoved your head through a window at a OWS protest.

            I mean NY is demanding biometric data from people accused of things, not even charged. And the spiffy Judges are pretending it is required before you can be given bail, or setting the bail higher if you refuse to have NY start and maintain secret records on you.

            But yeah I'm sure your right, its not like we have over zealous people in uniforms who would abuse their positions.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DMNTD, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:47pm

      Re:

      Fuck you and your ilk of "future crime" postulations. No living tards, move somewhere else that gives a damn about tyranny. No different than taking a person's shoe laces and cutting their pants because they "might"(throws up here) HANG THEMSELVES!?!!? GIBBERISH!! You do not deserve to live in what is left of freedom..gtfo.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:52pm

      Re:

      Nice try AC. But when YOU have to spread em, bare assed, for some punk cop to put you in to a single person holding cell, then come back and tell us how you felt, and if it was right.

      "If you are going to lock people up, you need to know they aren't armed and they aren't carrying drugs or contraband. Simple deal.

      Yeah because I was hanging out with my friends with contraband up my ass, and then would do said contraband after it had been there. Yeah right

      "It's not hard to imagine gang members working hard to get stopped for a traffic offence, getting tossed in jail, and sneaking in weapons to use against other gang members in the jail at the time."

      You would be put into a local holding cell until you see a judge for bail. Also depending on what you had done and if it was a jail-able offense. You would not be put in GP in a real PRISON. Logic FAIL.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 9:59am

    Now Law Enforcement has the freedom to pretend like every prison is Abu Ghraib! Oh joy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:04am

    Bill of rights? Amendments? I forgot those existed in United States

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:05am

    He mentions that one of the 9/11 hijackers got a speeding ticket

    Yet that didn't stop the attacks. BUT, it justifies the mobile TSA. Good job, justices (you don't deserve a capital letter), for taking away more rights in the land of the we-used-to-be-free-but-now-we're-slaves-to-the-gov.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      Note also that he wasn't put in jail for the speeding ticket...so the logical progression is for a law that for anybody who is accused of committing a crime, traffic violation, code violation, etc. must be immediately strip searched...to stop the terrorists!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    goatsedaisy, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:15am

    I was thinking about how one might protest this. About the only thing I could come up was to get a large number of people to gather and show the court and congress their spread assholes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:16am

    Read some of the offenses some people have been strip searched for:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/03/supremes_allow_unsupported_strip_searches/

    It's at the end of the article.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:26am

    Are we really still using 9/11 to justify things? It was over a decade ago. If there was going to be a repeat, it would've happened already. An event that some voters aren't old enough to properly remember is not a valid basis for national policy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pjerky (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 10:53am

    I wouldn't put up with this crap.

    As far as I am concerned, unless I have committed a violent act prior to arrest or given good cause to believe I may be hiding something on my person that is dangerous or illegal there is no excuse for strip searching me.

    So I would put it this way to the guards doing the search:
    "Bring me a warrant to search me or bring me my lawyer and keep your hands off me. If you touch me without that warrant I will consider it assault and attempted murder and I will invoke my right to self defense. At which point I will use any and all methods at my disposal to defend and protect myself. I respect that you are trying to just do your job, but that job does not include violating my rights. The rights which I am allowed to defend. Be professional and don't violate my rights and everything will remain peaceful and fine."

    Basically I would make it clear that I don't intend to harm nor wish to harm the person charged with searching me. But if they do attempt to do so without legal cause I will protect myself and my rights with all due respect. If this means that I break some contradictory laws in the process so be it. I don't like those that abuse their power and I hate bullies with a passion that burns very brightly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MJ, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:03pm

      Re: I wouldn't put up with this crap.

      This makes it so the AREN'T violating your rights. They are just removing your rights.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 11:33am

    Searches

    I'm with the Court on this one. If you've been validly and legally taken to jail, then you can be searched. Thoroughly.

    Having spent many years taking people to jails and working in and around them, it's no joke when someone suddenly produces a weapon from somewhere on their person and you don't have one. Jails and prisons are the one place where law enforcement officers don't have weapons of their own to defend themselves.

    Just because you're arrested for a minor traffic warrant doesn't mean you're a complete angel but for speeding. The police have a duty to make the jails as safe as possible for everyone and if that means you get searched when you go in, so be it.

    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Torg (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:21pm

      Re: Searches

      "Jails and prisons are the one place where law enforcement officers don't have weapons of their own to defend themselves."

      It seems like fixing that might be a better approach than treating everyone with a parking violation like they're hardened criminals.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Grae (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Searches

      "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

      The problem with this rhetoric is that the body of United States federal law is currently so complex that it's impossible for the average citizen to know if they're breaking the law at any given moment and in my opinion due to this complexity it's probable that thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of US citizens violate obscure local, state, and federal laws every day, many of them obsolete but have been left in the code of law by negligent lawmakers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:45pm

      Re: Searches

      What about people who are mistakenly arrested?

      I hope you're mistakenly picked up and you get a full body cavity search.

      Liberal= A Conservative whose been arrested.
      Conservative= A Liberal whose been mugged.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btr1701 (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:18pm

        Re: Re: Searches

        > What about people who are mistakenly arrested?

        It's all part of what sucks about being mistakenly arrested. You might as well say that the cops should't be allowed to put handcuffs on people or take them to jail in the first place, because someone might be mistakenly arrested and that deprives them of their right to liberty.

        Mistakes happen, and when they do, there are legal remedies for the victims of the mistakes, but that doesn't mean the police shouldn't be able to do something as basic as search people who are booked into a jail because someone, somewhere might be the victim of a mistake.

        > I hope you're mistakenly picked up and you get
        > a full body cavity search.

        Hope away, but that's about as likely as me being struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    So what does it take to get a SCOTUS decision overturned? Preferably some process that doesn't involve the government doing it, since the current and recent administrations probably wish that they'd go even further toward eroding our rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:21pm

      Re:

      > So what does it take to get a SCOTUS decision
      > overturned? Preferably some process that doesn't
      > involve the government doing it

      So let me get this straight-- you want us to come up with a non-governmental method of overturning a decision of the highest court in the United States?

      Put the blunt down and sober up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Torg (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:40pm

        Re: Re:

        I wouldn't object to a non-governmental method of overturning any decisions made by any part of the federal government. Why should we have to beg our representatives to properly represent us?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          > I wouldn't object to a non-governmental method
          > of overturning any decisions made by any part
          > of the federal government

          Any entity that has power over government administration becomes, by definition, part of the government.

          Not to mention, you'd have to undertake a wholesale revision of the Constitution to even implement such a thing.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Torg (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:16pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Any entity that has power over government administration becomes, by definition, part of the government."

            If the ability to hold a popular vote to overturn a governmental action makes the populace a part of the government, then that's fine. I just think writing your congressman is pathetic, inefficient and generally ineffectual.

            "Not to mention, you'd have to undertake a wholesale revision of the Constitution to even implement such a thing."

            I think this could be achieved with an amendment, but if that's what it takes, then I want a wholesale revision of the Constitution. Pure representative democracy has run its course.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              btr1701 (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 12:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              > If the ability to hold a popular vote to overturn a governmental
              > action makes the populace a part of the government, then that's
              > fine.

              So you want our fundamental freedoms subject to a majority vote?

              If that's the case, say goodbye to Roe v. Wade. And gay marriage? Good luck with that.

              The Constitution is set up to prevent just that sort of thing-- to protect the rights of the minority from a tyranny of the majority.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Torg (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 6:23am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Well, our fundamental freedoms are already subject to a majority vote. It's just a majority of five, and those voting tend to be more educated on average than most voters. But yes, a simple majority vote seems like a bad idea for exactly that reason. There'd need to be other qualifications such as a minimum voter turnout to be valid and a majority much larger than half, maybe two thirds to three quarters majority to overturn.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  btr1701 (profile), Apr 5th, 2012 @ 11:49am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  > and a majority much larger than half, maybe two
                  > thirds to three quarters majority to overturn.

                  There was a time when 2/3rds or 3/4s would have voted to overturn Brown v. Board of Education.

                  Most of the progress in civil rights law that we take for granted today would have been blocked by the system you propose.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Rekrul, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 7:31pm

        Re: Re:

        So let me get this straight-- you want us to come up with a non-governmental method of overturning a decision of the highest court in the United States?

        When the Supreme Court actually made intelligent decisions that were in the best interest of the people, I would have said no. But now, they seem to be one of the biggest threats to the American people, willing to nullify whole categories of people's rights.

        Expecting the government to reign them in is like expecting lawyers to convince their employers not to sue people. The government LIKES the fact that the SCOTUS is constantly chipping away at people's rights. They're cheering them on.

        It used to be that the SCOTUS was the last defense against bad laws, but now they've clearly sold out the American people, along with our corrupt government.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 1:28pm

    Welcome

    We want to welcome you to the United POLICE States of America. Please remove your close and bend over.

    (Please apply to any situation you would like)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:34pm

    What a debt of gratitude we owe to the framers of the CONstitution for giving us this wonderful government and its SSupreme KKKourt. We should just love our founding fathers to the 33rd Degree.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    enzo, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:37pm

    Have any of you actually read the ruling? It is specifically mentioned that the ruling does not suggest minor offenses should be admitted to the general population.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:46pm

    Abraham Lincoln was a smart man who killed a lot of vampires in his younger days.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Paul, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 5:12pm

    I have two good friends who have both been arrested for no good reason at all. One was because his sister had used his name for a fake prescription that he knew nothing about. Another was because he "drove erratically" when passing a bunch of cops shining bright lights on a major road apparently after there was a shooting in the area. I think I recall the cops arresting George Cluney the other day as well. I know several other people who have gotten behind on their traffic tickets. None of these people were *mistakenly* arrested. How does this ruling not say that prisons are incapable of being able to distinguish crimes thus making it reasonable to search their assholes when the prisons are crowded. If you follow the logic of what causes the "need" for the search, I don't see why this ruling wouldn't apply to TSA searches, if that's what they feel is necessary to stop terrorist attacks. I mean, the reasonable way out of this mess now seems to be to legislate that warrants must now include a specification on if it's permits the police officer to search the asshole of the person accused of the crime. If the prison situation is so bad that they have no means of separating the non-dangerous offenders from the dangerous ones - they should let the non-dangerous ones go if it's a security concern for the general population. If that's not acceptable to the maintaining of order, then they should build the facilities and pay the costs to manage such things. This ruling basically seems to say the 4th amendment is trumped by things costing more than the government feels like paying for or dealing with. If there's a potential threat, as long as it's applied randomly or to everyone, the children will be anally probed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    V (profile), Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 5:13pm

    Treason?

    So... government officials... including Supreme Court Justices... are sworn to uphold the Constitution. When they fail to do so, they are committing a crime against the nation... isn't that treason?

    Obviously, THEY don't want to see it that way. But I can't help but think that deliberately or in complete ignorance chipping away at the Constitution should be punishable by death.

    I would prefer public firing squad to dissuade others.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 5:38pm

      Re: Treason?

      So... government officials... including Supreme Court Justices... are sworn to uphold the Constitution. When they fail to do so, they are committing a crime against the nation... isn't that treason?

      Ummm, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, not disgruntled citizens who style themselves as Constitutional scholars. Who would you have try them? Who would they appeal to, themselves?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 7:29pm

      Re: Treason?

      No. You know, treason itself is defined in the Constitution. Bad rulings are not treason... unless they were paid by enemies of the US to make them, maybe. But you'd need 2 witnesses to an overt act to convict them.

      People throw around "treason" too often.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 7:33pm

    I really hope that some of the judges who voted for this get arrested and then strip searched...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    SofaKing (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 12:21am

    Most people in jail are still presumed innocent during their stay there. The cops should most likely find any weapon ect during the arrest itself.

    Strip searches are pointless for a few reasons.

    You're not going to be strip searched till after you go through booking. This can take a day or longer depending on the area.

    East St. Louis IL I was in the holding area for 5 days before I was booked. That was 5 days of sleeping on concrete with no cover or mattresses and detoxing from massive amounts of pain killers.
    Mt. Vernon IL 2 Days. With my trusty Bob Barker mattresses.
    Marion IL 1 1/2 Days. With my trusty Bob Barker mattresses.
    Champaign IL 2 Days. With my trusty Bob Barker mattresses.
    Chicago IL 8 Days. No mattresses.


    If they missed a knife on me I had 5 days to kill every single person in the holding cell with me.

    Lesson learned? Don't fuck up in Chicago or East St. Louis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Adam Gorman (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 5:05am

    Strip Search

    Instead of having to deal with constantly searching people for belongings. How about we just all adopt a nudist society where no one can hide "dangerous" weapons and items. If you are carrying a gun or knife, its obvious.

    If everyone is naked, no one could hide things on their person.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rekrul, Apr 4th, 2012 @ 11:05am

      Re: Strip Search

      If everyone is naked, no one could hide things on their person.

      Well, they could, but as Agent 86 pointed out, it would be painful. :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    aethercowboy (profile), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 5:45am

    What next? We redefine airports as "jails"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    (A), Apr 4th, 2012 @ 2:54pm

    As long as we have government, we will never have true freedom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This