Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Approves Strip Searches For Any Arrestable Offense
sl4shd0rk writes "Taking a page out of the TSA handbook, the Supreme Court has voted to allow strip searches for any offense, no matter how minimal. The article cites these two tidbits from Justice Anthony Kennedy: 'Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,' and 'Maintaining safety and order at detention centers requires the expertise of correctional officials.'"
We have gone insane in the United States. Our constitution is consistantly being ignored, and our freedoms are dwindling. This is just one more example.
'Every detainee ... may be required to undergo a close visual inspection
That means the cops don't have any responsibility to find every weapon, but they can search you if they want to. If you get shived in lockup, that's your own bad luck.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
RTFA:
Again displaying their infinite law-and-order wisdom, the US Supreme Court has ruled that anyone arrested for any offense, however innocuous, can be strip-searched, even if there's no suspicion that they are concealing contraband.
He wasn't convicted.
Florence ... was arrested when his wife was pulled over for speeding (he was a passenger, and his son was in the back seat), and a check of his record showed an unpaid fine for an earlier offense. That record-check was wrong – the fine had been paid – but Florence spent a week in jail anyway, where he underwent the two strip searches.
He didn't commit any crime.
The ABA also notes that Albert Florence, who brought the original suit, was stripped-searched twice, once in private when "the supervising officer inspected Mr. Florence's mouth, tongue, armpits, buttocks, and genitals," and a second time when "he was forced to strip off his clothes in a shower area with a group of four other prisoners, all of whom were required to open their mouths, lift their genitals, and 'squat and cough' in plain sight of one another."
He was publicly humiliated.
Stop apologizing for the complete and total gutting of our rights.
Yes and no.
By itself, Jaywalking isn't an arrestable offense.
But let's say you didn't pay a parking ticket, so a warrant was issued for your arrest. Or let's go further and say you did pay the ticket, but they forgot to cancel the warrant, or let's say that your name is the same as someone else who has a warrant. Then it's get naked!
Or let's say you're protesting the horrible treatment of the 99% and the police decide to single you out to be beaten, pepper sprayed, beaten some more, zip-tied so tight that your hands turn blue and you suffer permanent nerve damage, and then they beat you some more, and then take you to jail and strip you naked.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I don't think it's fair to compare a moment of slight humiliation at being strip searched to the very real risk of an inmate attacking a guard with a smuggled weapon.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
What about Juvenile Detention facilities?
PA had an issue where the detention facility was paying a judge to convict kids because the facility charged the state per kid, so, more kids == more profit.
In NYC alone in 2011, we had 50,000 arrested for smoking a joint, and every one of those arrests is a potential strip search.
There's an abuse of power already in progress, and we just gave them the ability to strip us literally, as well as strip us of our rights. 4th Amendment, anyone?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
america has become a land of SEX PERVERTS.
let me correct that, if you are in a position of 'authority', your next role is to fight to have the right to strip search people and humiliate them.
yes, its about humiliation and not torture. a 'graceful' way to scare people into submission without all the bad aftertaste (so to speak).
tsa fondles and gropes passengers and now we give the sociopaths in blue the ability to scare you into submission by threat of this new tactic.
I guess spraying and volting you was not enough to control the population; we needed MORE tools to subdue the populace?
it sure does seem that this has a bit of the 'occupy' people in mind. lets scare the protesters so much that they'll think twice about showing their dissatisfaction at public gatherings.
piece by piece, we disassemble the laws and cultural norms that made this country GREAT. a once great nation, falling, before our very eyes. this is not hyperbole, either; its not even a slow cook of the frog. we're throwing the frog into boiling water and no one seems to really object but the powerless 'citizens'. and our voice has no representation anymore. the surpremes work for someone else, now, it appears ;(
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
You just found the loophole. It is an old police tactic for roughing up people who have done nothing wrong. The law is written in such a way that you can be arrested and released without charge and nothing happens to the officer, but pointing out that you did nothing illegal is, in and of itself, an arrest-able offense that will stand.
So yes, if you are standing around doing nothing a police officer can come up and say ' you are under arrest' and bring you in... they can then not charge you with anything which means you can go. If you say 'I am not doing anything, what am I being arrested for' you can then be arrested for resisting arrest and even though there is no original charge you can be charged for the resistance, which pretty much comes down to 'didn't show officer respect they felt they deserved'.
It is because of patterns like this that the police in the US are generally best avoided unless you are the one who called them. Too unpredictable, too many ways around the laws, and too many people willing to protect them against non-police.
You're dead wrong.
"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Also, jails are where innocent, yet charged, people go. Prisons are where convicted people go.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
any police officer can take you and have you strip searched for any reason whatsoever (let's say you're arrested for resisting arrest)
Actually resisting arrest is a relatively serious crime. The guy in the case was arrested because someone else driving his car had previously gotten a traffic ticket. The ticket had been paid and the man had a letter from the court stating that it had been paid. So he was arrested for the crime of being a citizen in good standing with the law. Then he was strip searched twice once while with several other prisoners. Both occasions involved the visual inspection of his genitals and anus.
So the Supreme Court ruled that it is perfectly reasonable to arrest someone for absolutely no reason hold her for a few days and repeatedly sexually humiliate her. I use the pronoun "her" in this case to get you thinking about how you would feel if it were your wife or daughter though it should bother you just as much if it were your son. Imagine that your 19 year old daughter had gotten a speeding ticket, paid it a bit late, but paid it in full, and was carrying proof, was then forcibly taken into custody for a few days and required to spread her legs and hold open her vagina while an officer shined a flashlight inside while several others stood around, then repeat for her anus; and again before going to court where the judge orders her released on her own recognizance. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in favor of.
I will say this now. Cops will abuse this (hell they have doing this for years only then sometimes they would get sued). If they don't like you they are now allowed to sexually assault you repeatedly. This ruling was vague enough that cops will probably push the boundaries (they always do) and begin using penetrating cavity searches.
I hope it happens to each of these justices kids and grandkids.
-- QED
The USA has no legal concept of "arrestable" offense. Only summary vs. indictable offenses. You can be arrested for either.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
How easy was it to find work in Denmark without speaking Danish?
I'm seriously considering moving elsewhere in Europe. There's no legal obstacles for me, I'm British, so the only question is how easy it is to find a job.
(However, I do quite like the job & friends I have here at the moment.)
From what I've been reading lately, we're a lot more likely to encouter fascism in Europe than the US. Hungary is on the verge of enacting a completely fascist constitution. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/120329/eu-takes-on-extremism-can-it-win-echoes-hitler-pt-4 EU is having to battle fascist uprisings left and right. Some would argue the EU itself has fascist leanings, especially in light of its entirely unelected leadership. Do a lot of reading before you decide...that's pretty much what I'm doing. All those austerity measures being pressed is just business and government screwing the people there. The people are entirely against most of what's happening all over EU. So we move from here and have a real, more mature battle there. Might be better to just stay here and try to change things on the inside. Plus, what if all the thinking people do leave the US and it does become ultra right wing fascist? Then we've got the most powerful army in the world going (more) nuts all over. The current reality all over the world isn't real pretty. The only place to go is maybe someplace that doesn't matter and has few people.
The EU is having to battle fascist uprisings left and right?!?!?!?
Since when? You must be reading an American-centric paper, HQ'd in the US and written in English.
That article is laughable and sensationalist, at best. 7%, oh no!
I live in socialist Continental Europe where a friend of mine was arrested after beating the stuffing out of someone who refused to leave his house. The police took him to the station, offered him coffee, and politely interviewed him. He then spend the weekend in jail, where he had regular smoke breaks, cable TV, and three squares. No strip searches, pepper spray, zip ties, or mancho police BS. Can you guess how often people are stabbed in jail here? Or how often guards are attacked?
This argument that having someone fondle your ballsack is for your own protection is exactly the kind of nonsensical, fear-based thinking that allowed a whole country to blithely accept penning protesters in "free speech zones," indefinite detentions without evidence or trial, and submitting to having naked photos taken in order to board an airplane. Police are supposed to protect the peace--they are public servants--and in many parts of the world, they reciprocate respect, instead of demanding it through dehumanizing displays of power.
This case has nothing to do with protecting guards, or keeping people from running with scissors in a jail cell--that is what eyeballs, ears, and cameras are for. What the SCOTUS said was that your fourth amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure ends when a police officer decides to arrest you. The guy in TFA was arrested because the cop thought that he hadn't paid a fine--despite having documentation that stated otherwise. He was then strip searched not once, but twice, before spending a week in jail. For allegedly not paying a fine. That he had in fact paid.
This decision is a further erosion of the Bill of Rights, plain and simple. The government needs a court order to obtain a search warrant before entering your house, but can enter your anus for loitering--or damn near anything because a copy can always find an excuse to arrest someone. Worse, it has a chilling effect, because now protestors know that, after being pepper-sprayed and zip-tied, they will be strip-searched multiple times.
Let's see what the amendement says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The SCOTUS has decreed that the whim of a single police officer, for any reason he or she deems worthy of arresting you, rises to the level of probable cause sufficient to violate the security of your person against unreasonable searches--unless your consider peeking inside someone's vagina or under their penis for participating in a peaceful protest reasonable. And, as anyone from a small town can attest to, cops can find any excuse to arrest you at any time, and face zero repercussions for flagrantly abusing that power; they don't even have to charge you with a crime. Slippery slope? Try free-fall.
Humor me for a second. Imagine a cop in a foul mood and who needs to fill quotas for traffic tickets, so he's pulling people over for just about anything. Now imagine that your wife is driving you home and she is pulled over by this cop. He runs her license, and asks for your ID--which you're not obliged to provide, but you don't want to start any trouble. He runs your ID and finds out that you have an unpaid parking ticket and that there is a warrant out for your arrest. Fortunately you have a receipt showing that you paid the fine, but the cop isn't buying it because the computer says otherwise. And you're black, so that probably isn't helping. The next thing you know, you're naked in a room full of strangers, spreading your ass cheeks apart while a stranger with a badge takes a good long look at your taint. Now imagine that this happens a second time, because they decide to move you from one jail to another during the entire week that you spend in jail. You're already in custody, but hey, "they've been doing it for decades now," and it's better safe than sorry.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
It's not that I hate America. I love this place, warts and all.
I'm sorry but what you feel is not love. People fight to save/protect the things they love. They don't run from them at the first sign of trouble - Coward.
Thing is, I suspect that PopeRatzo (among others) loves himself, his family, and his freedoms more than the abstract notion of "nation", especially when that nation is changing for the worse, relatively rapidly and in long-term ways that will be hard to change back.
It's not a question of courage. It's a question of smarts -- should I stay and try to turn a tide of stupidity that could very well cost me my life (at least figuratively), or should I arrange for my loved ones and myself to have a place of safety and greater relative freedom somewhere else? And, mark you, this particular SCOTUS ruling isn't the first sign of trouble; there are signs all over that things aren't going quite right.
Sometimes it's just smarter to get out of the way of an avalanche.
Now, if you want to argue about whether the changes in the US constitute an avalanche, that's all well and good. But that's not what you're doing. Calling someone chicken for doing what looks to me like simple self-preservation and seeking that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that Americans love to talk about, that's just dumb. I sure don't think my great-great grandad was a chicken for leaving Germany and coming to the US. He did the smart thing, as clearly evidenced by the course of history for the next 50-odd years after he left, bringing his family with him. (And yes, that branch of my family would have vanished had they stayed.)
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Leaving the country is scary. Most of us who are considering it are doing so even loving the America that we grew up in. It isn't difficulty that stops us, it's fear.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
The America you grew up in is the same as the one you live in now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Among others... I'd appreciate it if we stopped romanticizing our history and recognize that the US has pretty much always relied on force to get what they want (including going to war to get away from the crown).
That is the reality of American history: Shoot our way into getting what we want.
No sig for you!!
Turkey gets in as soon as it fulfills the criteria everyone else has to fulfill. In particular, they will have to accept the sovereignty of Cyprus, which is already EU member. Can't really take someone into the club who won't agree upon the legitimacy of a doubtlessly legitimate other club member. Apart from that there is a certain lack of human rights in Turkey, which has to change before the accession talks proceed any further. The same criteria apply for every other aspiring member, so there is hardly any racism involved. I'd be careful to throw around accusations of racisms when using words like "islamofascism" myself...
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
That being said, the Supreme Court ruling specifically said he was still allowed to proceed in court for the wrongful arrest. They did not challenge that part. Granted, the ruling was abysmally poor otherwise.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.