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.
Indecent exposure just became a whole lot more fun.
As a non American, can anybody explain to me why this isn't an utterly horrifying ruling? Can a police officer detain and strip search you if they see you jaywalking now?
If you allowed anyone to go into prison without careful screening, it would be no time at all before people would be getting themselves arrested for petty offenses simply to act as mules bringing weapons and banned goods into the prison - something that is already an issue but it would explode.
I'm not sure what people have against someone who, remember, has already been convicted of a crime, to have to endure special screening before incarceration. They don't have the right to leave any time they want either, why should they have the right not to submit to visual inspection? The simple fact is that as a criminal you lose some rights you would have otherwise, so it's not like this ruling has general applicability we need to be concerned about.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I generally am pretty pro-civil rights, but if I were going into a jail or prison I would probably rather have someone strip search me than to get shanked later by some psycho who snuck in a knife. And it's also a pretty shitty message to send to guards to say "A minor issue of prisoner privacy is more important to us than your safety."
Maybe you can make the "slippery slope" argument on this, but some sort of strip search on prison admission is hardly a new issue. They've been doing it for decades now.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I prefer a strip search any time if the the other choice is grantÃng them access to my PC. The strip search is less intruding...
What goes in USA is no longer funny.
And to think that Americans were laughing at "lack of liberties" in countries under soviet influence...
I'm already done being mad about this. Since you're basically being strip searched now when you board a plane, take a train, drive your car, get arrested for smoking a joint, yadda, yadda, I propose we just stop wearing clothes.
I mean the TSA, cops, school principals, ticket wardens, etc. are gonna remove 'em anyway, you might as well just stay naked.
And for all you RTFA dopes who are going to reply to this saying "this is only for people being released into the general prision population, I say 'BULLSHIT'.
There's a story right below this one about cell-phone tracking without a warrant. Don't believe for a second this ruling won't be used to abuse rights by those in power, or those that THINK they have power because they have guns and handcuffs, or they are backed up by some "board".
Hell, potential employers want your facebook password, maybe pretty soon you'll be strip searched before you can go to work.
Time to leave this country. In Florida, it's legal to provoke someone to threaten you and then you shoot them, it's now legal to strip search anyone for any reason, and our government is controlled and run by Goldman Sachs, for Goldman Sachs. Screw this.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Old facist state checklist:
Engaged in conflict across the globe.
Government working for the interest of business.
Propaganda in use. (The 6th edition of the book Propaganda was called Public Relations - so not only in use but considered a career)
And now more Police Survelance state.
Everything old is nude again I guess.
'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)
I read Slashdot every day. In the last year I have read that our government now has the approval to run drones over OUR heads and now this. Unfuckingbelievable.
When are we going to wake up? I bet that before I die (hopefully of old age) that I will read that a drone flown by a municipality shot and killed a citizen who escaped custody for not allowing a strip search for a misdemeanor littering offense.
In my 60 years on the planet, I have never seen a worse Supreme Court! In fact these guys have done more harm to our way of life than all of the others combined.
What the hell is going on?
Oh those guys at the supreme court are hilarious, what a great April fools joke. Wait, today is April 3... I am sure that they really meant this ruling was to be a handed out on April 1, but justices have been known to be horrible with time. God I hope this is just a late April fools joke.
So this is what happens when you give up freedoms for security.
I'd say it's not an equitable exchange, the security is really perceived but the freedoms that you give up are quite real.
SCOTUS is not doing its job, hasn't been doing its job for over 100 years now, it's not defending the Constitution. Why is it important to defend the Constitution? Because that's the only thing that stands between YOU and government tyranny.
You can't handle the truth.
Our freedom is pretty much an illusion now. What makes it worse are those TV shows where regular violation of rights are conducted and people just accept it and because the mass of sheeple accept it the slide is faster.
Who the enemy of freedom is becoming like a battle for the mind. me me me and now now now has replaced any desire for higher aspirations for society. People with serious concerns are ignored as morbid and the vapid shallow entertaining ones lead us to our demise dancing and smiling. Slavery== new iDevice, shiney, sleek, desirable Freedom==cumbersome, hard to manage and means I have to think.
I don't like thinking, it's too hard
Would you comfort me Big Mother? at home at work when I play. oh, it's uncomfortable at first, but I think I'll get used to it,, till eventually you say "I like being fisted"
You *will* like it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I'm sure this will be a cop who's a closet-pedo/stalker dream come true.
While the TSA are under federal supervision, I can't imagine what kind of insane abuse cops out in the sticks (say, in Gidding, TX) will do "to protect and to serve."
I'm not seeing the reason for all the umbrage here. Strip searching a prisoner who is being released into the general population of a prison (and not any offence, no matter how minimal, thank you very much submitter sl4shd0rk - but good on you for twisting things so that you could get more of a reaction from the knee-jerks) seems to me to be a valid idea. Protects the guards at the prison. Protects the other inmates. Unlike those of us who aren't in prison, prisoners have no right to privacy (and have never had) so it's not a violation of their rights. Can someone explain to me what the big deal is?
our daily comic strip...
Here's the real issue. We all see this headline differently and have different responses. You see the issue concerning our liberty while I'm busy trying to figure out how to get more lady cops hired and exactly what kind of crime spree I'm going on. Hey, if they're going to take away our freedoms you might as well enjoy it.
Does this mean cops can now carry around portable blinds and have your strip on the side of the road?
The Supreme Court did not approve strip searches for "any arrestable offense." It approved them for anyone being put into the general prison population who, at the judgment of officials running said institution, need to be searched for health and safety reasons. Several justices wrote in attached opinions that the ruling does not necessarily apply to people who are arrested but will not be put into the general prison population. It's not "anyone who could be arrested" that may be strip searched: it's "anyone who's going to be put into the jail with other prisoners."
Just as several states tightened up eminent domain laws in light of Kelo, so now it is time for the states to tighten up strip-search laws, or perhaps strip search liability or when arrestees are placed "in the general population". Sadly, I have not yet heard of any such call for new laws as there was in the wake of Kelo.
The strip search isn't part of the punishment, folks. The guy running the jail, and the strip search, doesn't give a rat's backside if you've been convicted or not. What he wants to do is make sure you're not bringing contraband into the prison population. It's a security measure for the jail. Otherwise, it becomes a pretty easy method of getting all kinds of unpleasant things into the jail. I don't have to stretch my imagination too far to see how to get weapons in, and smuggling drugs wouldn't be too hard either.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
Pan from behind the President addressing Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Press.
All standing and cheering
It is a sad day.
Every outstanding traffic ticket in America has just been paid!
(For those that don't get this joke, RTFA!)
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
There is no fast way to fix the Supreme court. The "justices" are nominated by the president and confirmed by Congress/Senate. The only way to fix the supreme court is to consistently vote and vote "not Republican". The Republican will never place anyone on the Supreme court who isn't predisposed to supporting Big Business, Big Brother and Big Religion.
...we just strip whenever we get pulled over or detained for questioning. Even if it has no effect on the law, it'll be worth it to see the expressions on their face.
This is just a blank check for cops to arrest people and use this ruling as a back door to do an end run around the 4th amendment by letting the jail do the search for them.
Before:
1. Cop gets warrant
2. Search happens
3. Contraband found
4. Cop makes arrest
Now:
1. Cop makes bullshit arrest
2. Prison does a strip search
3. Contraband found
4. Subject gets busted for contraband
So if the cops want to search you, now all they have to do is just slap the cuffs on you and boot you behind bars and let the prison filter out as contraband whatever it is they didn't want to get a warrant for out on the streets.
The tone for most of it reads as more than just a tad sarcastic, but I can't see how that would make it offtopic. It actually seems pretty square on topic to me (more so than this comment, in fact).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
.... and be subject to a full cavity search. I can seen then how quickly they would reverse that decision.
It's indecent and disgusting. I understand their reasoning, but when it's and all or nothing decision, and not one of common sense, it's simply wrong.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
'Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,'
It doesn't matter what the person did, the rules are the same.
It only applies when somebody is being put into a general prison population. The prisons have to ensure the safety of everybody, the prisoner, the guards and other prisoners. The ruling affirmed that they should all undergo the same procedures as everybody else. Granting exceptions leads to a gray area where prisoners could be caught with contraband and claim the officers had no suspicion and thus no grounds to search them in the first place. Its also for prisoner safety since the inspection procedures are to note any tattoos, markings or health concerns before you put somebody into an enclosed area with other people. The other concern was that guards at a prison may see hundred of prisoners coming through, they won't know who has exceptions and who doesn't.
It still has to be part of an established procedure, people can't do it to target specific people or to get their jollies off. That established procedure could still be challenged in court if it goes too far.
I predict a lot of lovely young ladies will be strip searched, and those rooms with the mirror/window... well, guys will be lining up with their cameras.
Those photos will make their way to the internet, and 4Chan will have a field day.
And the crimes those ladies are convicted of? Underage drinking, smoking pot, and anything else the creepy cop can think of before he "detains" that lovely young lady.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I left the US to work in Europe because I was very tired of the crappy politics, lack of a social system and erosion of personal rights. This story is perfect example. In certain countries (e.g. Denmark) you don't even need employment for a resident permit. All one needs is 100 points on the new system shown here:
http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/work/greencard-scheme/greencard-scheme.htm
A PhD from a reasonable university gives 95 points. Speaking English is worth 20 points. Being under 35 helps as well. As does being in a technical field (e.g. IT).
It's not so hard to leave, so quit calling bullshit on those that have/plan to.
This law changes .. nothing.. maybe no one here has been arrested... or the /. jailbirds are quiet, but this is s.o.p in almost all jails in all states. You are usually instructed to remove all of your clothes, and you are searched for contraband, (drugs,weapons, etc) and you are then either issued jail fatigues, or you are allowed to put your own clothes back on (depends on the jail, how long you wil be in for, policies, etc) .. All that this law does is legally formalize state-by-state policies which have been in practice for the last 30-50 years. Yes, if you go to jail you ARE strip-searched as part of in-proccessing (where you get your prints, mug shot taken, etc) ... You have no choice but to comply, or else you will be searched by force, or quarantined until you consent, as you may be a risk to yourself or others.. But ... this ahref=http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/jan/13/6/nc-jailers-find-gun-inmates-cell-believed-be-hidde-ar-1811776/rel=url2html-16165http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/jan/13/6/nc-jailers-find-gun-inmates-cell-believed-be-hidde-ar-1811776/> will still happen.
So to all the people that are continually outraged at the never-ending erosion of civil liberties in the USA, let me pose this question:
What do you think the Second Amendment to your constitution really means?
It's not just the right to bear arms, it's also the *responsibility* to bear arms. When the government of the country you supposedly love
starts selling out its own citizens so blatantly and consistently, you're not supposed to blog about it. You're supposed to take up arms
and fight against oppression. You don't get to be a wild-eyed AK-47 collector hiding in your bunker. That's cowardice. What you have to
do is stand up to the government. The militia types may seem crazy, but their craziness is looking more and more sane in the rearview
mirror of society as it gets driven down the road to a totalitarian state by the congressmen, senators and other politicians driving the bus.
This is coming from someone who does not and probably never will own a gun, living in a different country.
And in the USA, those free speech rights are used by the $cientologist, mormons or muslims to harass, intimidate and threaten you, so you're now afraid for your own safety.
In what way is this a better thing to have happen?
PS better not speak unless you're in a Free Speech Zone (out of the way of anyone who'd be "inconvenienced" by you exercising your rights)...
In response to both your comment and the one above you. Canada does have written laws and a Constitution. We do have rights of Free Expression, although they differ from those in the US which are far more absolute. Our system is workable IMHO, if applied.
Of course the Government and the courts may not be applying it evenly and correctly, but that is what elections and the courts are for in the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada
If you are thinking of countries that don't have their entire legal system written down, I expect you mean Great Britain - and I am no longer certain that is true.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
great way to intimidate insurgents
That is not what SCOTUS ruled at all.
SCOTUS ruled in this case that the petitioners rights were not violated by the prison's blanket policy of strip-searching all inmates on intake.
The petitioner was arrested on an outstanding warrants for fines that he had already paid. During his wrongful arrest, he was transported to two different prisons where he was strip searched as a matter of prison policy. The petitioner contended that, because he had committed no crime and was not under suspicion thereof, that his rights were violated. SCOTUS upheld that prison safety was the greater interest when the blanket policy is to strip search all inmates to prevent the introduction of weapons.
The petitioner should have sued on grounds of wrongful arrest, not unlawful search.
For example say, constitution reads "if a=b=c then a+b+c=3c". Now someone got you arrested becuase you wrote - a+b+c = 3b. The argument they put forward is that If a=b=c then a+b+c=3c but a+b+c !=(not equal) to 3b. Then depending on political orientation, the judges then may vote 5:4 in favour of a+b+c != 3b.
Politically appointed judges! what else can you expect. These judges once said Corporation == a Person. And 60 years later we have 99:1% result/movement. We have a great constitution but as long as Judges are appointed as political mules, we are screwed.
The summary almost goes out of it's way to make it sound like one can be strip searched for a minor traffic offense. This is false. The SCOTUS decision applies to be individuals being processed into jail facilities. Officer and inmate safety is, obviously, compromised by allowing suspects into that environment without a thorough search. The decision is the right one.
I can't even muster up the enthusiasm to feign surprise here.
Well, I am a little surprised that they're dismantling the 4th before the 2nd. Can't see this playing out well in the long term.
This signature is false.
Is a C&U challenge possible?
Surely in some cases this is being used as a punitive measure by police, and as a way of coercing suspects. And in some cases the strip search is a far greater punishment than any probable sentence.
lol, you are bankrupt and therefore more and more inhumane laws are passed, in order to be ready, when the first protests arise.
...You've got nothing to hide.
First, SOTUS only ruled that the practice is not a violation of the US Constitution. That does NOT mean the practice cannot be legislated out of existence. If you feel that this practice is wrong, get off your whiny ass and fix it. Call your US congressman, state congressman, form an activist group, whatever. That is the problem in the US today - bunch of people complaining about our rights being taken away but not willing to do anything about it.
So how long before we start to see roadside strip searches of Occupy protestors? And just last week we were criticizing Egypt for their "virginity testing", which in practical terms, is almost the same procedure as a cavity search in the US.
Prison could always do this. Harmless protestors are strip searched and abused beyond what is reasonable but they get away with most of it and when they do not the legal losses are not enough to cause a change in behavior; the politicians are often unaffected too. This happened a generation ago and before that...
This formally allows it meaning previous self restraint will be far weaker. Jerk around a cop and they take you in and probe you; probably VIDEO it to avoid any lawsuits... really upset them and the video leaks out.
We need to do a search, we got a warrant on you for harassing people using an electronic device.
If you're not hiding anything illegal in your anus, why would you not let police officers search it?
There is only a problem if you're guilty!
It's fascinating that no one's mentioned the breakdown of the 5-4 vote yet. Seems like your vaunted conservative judges may not actually have individual liberties that close to their hearts, glibertarians.
I had to spend 24 hours in jail years ago. Upon check-in, I was made to strip naked, turn around, pull my butt cheeks apart and bend over to show the guard my brown rosebud. No joke. It was hot (kidding). Anyway, I got the feeling it was pretty standard. What's my point? You want to never do anything that could possibly land you in jail. What I did was definitely minimal, but I did have to go to jail for 24 hours. If you were a guard in that place and had to deal with some of the people I saw, you'd want to make sure there wasn't anything hanging out between those butt cheeks, too. From my brief stay, I got the definite feeling from the other inmates that they a) think they're real smart b) are sneaky c) are dangerous. I think the employees at the jail have probably figured out the same and are looking to avoid being cut, shot or having the unpleasant job of dragging a dead body out of a cell. If you land in jail, even for a short time, the strip search is just one of the many indignities you'll endure there. I don't think anybody on here has much to worry about and I'm probably one of the few /,ers who's ever even been, but do try avoiding it! Aren't a lot of constutional protections suspended when you're incarcerated? Your right to be clothed is definitely one of them.
The case isn't nearly as simple as the summary or the full article would indicated. I recommend the following:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=10-945
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
For..the...LAST... flipping time.
The UK does have a written constitution but it's spread over many, many documents. There is huge body of constitutional law and it's a speciality area of practice. Jeez, people.
We can't fight THEM.
They have tanks, and planes, drones, grenades, SWAT teams, yadda, yadda. Waco Texas should have proved to you that you can't fight them. They have too much military power.
So, we have no choice but to shoot at each other and do their job FOR THEM.
Look at what happened in Argentina when the economic crisis crashed the economy. The government survived, but it was chaos in the streets. People shooting each other for food, rampant crime, corrupt cops, but the government used it's resources to save itself, and protect itself FROM the people.
That's the way we are headed. The 2nd Amendment doesn't matter because we have no way to defeat our own government. They can crush us.
Sure, people will try and it will be reported on TV as "a group with small arms we gunned down by the police" and we'll go on about our day trying to defend ourselves from other people trying to steal our food, rape our daughters, take our car, etc.
Do a little research. And stock up on food and water.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You hateful bigoted fuckers bankrolled prop hate in CA. You know what they say about people in glass houses, right? Maybe put down the stone and take a look at the despicable business that is your "church."
they buy me a box of chocolates and some flowers too, and a long kiss on the lips with some wet toungue would be nice too.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
The real question is how long it will be until people realize this stuff *can* happen to them. Until that happens, I don't think any of this will change.
By and large people still have the perception that arrests happen to *other* people. You don't get arrested unless you do something wrong. They don't realize a) that's not always true and b) we all do something wrong at some point from being lazy and jaywalking to doing something we honestly didn't know what wrong because there are so many laws in this country.
This set me to thinking; if the TSA scanners are so good, why shouldn't the police be using them to screen prisoners?
And if the po-po need to do real strip-searches, shouldn't the TSA be doing the same?
Both cases are trying exclude things like blades and substances, so the techniques should be transferable.
Unless both are bullsh*t...
I swear, reading the things that go on in our government is like reading a bloody horror story.
The second I get fired from my job, I'm going to Canada.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
This article is is very misleading. All the ruling states is that it is not innately Unconstitutional to allow prisoners to be searched before being admitted to the General Population of a Prison. It does not say its an open privileged of Law Enforcement, or that such things can not or should not be regulated at the state level (where nearly all privacy laws reside). And for those of you not for the US or ignorant of the terminology, this does not mean a strip search for any offense, nor does it mean unrestricted strip search privileges. Cops cannot go around picking people up for anything and stripping them down for fun. To be admitted to the General Population of a prison, you have been already charged with a crime, denied bail, and are in for an extended stay, or else have already been convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail-time. Then it must be proven that you are not a danger to the rest of the population from disease, contraband (ie weapons, drugs), undocumented gang affiliations (which will often intentionally get arrested to gain access to their intended victims), etc.
That being said, no system is perfect and accidents happen and sometimes people get sent to jail incorrectly. Those instances are tragic and every effort should be taken to avoid them. I had a friend in high school who was arrested for underage possession of alcohol. He was taken in and was booked while they contacted his parents, all normal. But then the the power went out and fried the computer systems, and suddenly the police station had holding cells full of people and no way to confirm who was who or why they were there; no way to tell the murderers from the con men from the minors having a bad night, and they were forced to lock up everyone until things could be cleared up. Long story short, that power outage and a bad choice of lawyer left him in general population for most of a week. Was it fun? Hell no, it scared him shitless. But at least he was reasonably safe.
Which headline would you rather see:
"Innocent Man Jailed, had terrible time in prison"
or
"Innocent man Killed in Jail with Smuggled Switchblade, Guards Not Allowed to Search Inmates Over Privacy Concerns"
If the Supreme court had ruled that the searches where unconstitutional, such searches would have to be unilaterally banned, which kills any hope of maintaining even a semblance of a safe prison environment. If they ruled that it was only allowed for certain offenses, then only a certain cross-section of the population would actually be subject to the safety, which makes it pointlessly ineffective. What they did was rule that the regulation of the searches should be left to a more case-by-case (or realistically a state-by-state) basis. I know that we all have a reflexive reaction to any perceived power or authority figure with the assumption that they will abuse whatever power they are given, but we forget that those positions of power exist for a reason. If we don't trust the people in those positions, we should be more concerned with preventing the wrong people form getting that job, not legislate away the power they need to do fulfill their role in society. Governments exist for a reason; We don't necessarily need a weaker Government, we just need a more trustworthy one.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
Wonder if there is reflective paint to block out scanners as well?
Just don't get one in the shape of something suspicious.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Human rights cannot be "eroded". They can either be respected or oppressed. There is no middle ground, as the propaganda term "erosion" implies.
Erosion is a natural, inevitable, neutral process with respect to human life. Oppression is unnatural, dependent entirely on human decision (not nature), and clearly biased towards those in power.
In conclusion, be a man and call it what it really is: oppression. Don't use terms like "erosion" and "cracking down" (another favorite) which are designed to downplay the reality of oppression and the actual consequences.
"'Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,'"
This has been happening for decades already; in local, state, and federal prisons.
And whats wrong with strip searching prisoners? Dont like it? Stay out of jail.
Is that the general electorate is distracted by side issues. It's all about my team versus their team, who cares that the teams are nearly identical and neither even talk about the real issues at hand. We're all too distracted by the "things I don't like versus the things you do like" stuff that can't even manage to figure out that we need to get new leadership all around. Start a new movement like Occupy or the Tea Party and it gets co-opted by the existing structure without anyone even noticing.
America has become a joke. For all their years of mocking the "papers please" culture of some of the old communist countries, they're going down this road themselves.
Some entire states have reached the point where the "border patrol" can grab you anywhere in the state and detain you arbitrarily. Half of the Constitutional rights you had are now routinely ignored.
All of her industry has been outsourced so everyone can have cheap Nikes, but no jobs to pay for it. And they have to import people from the rest of the world to do the skilled work because they don't educate their kids anymore.
They treat visitors like criminals, fingerprint them, detain them arbitrarily without recourse, confiscate their property so they can inspect it for copyright violations.
Sorry America ... you've jumped the shark. You're no longer a positive force on this planet, you're just a bunch of scared sheep who will do whatever your government tells you.
It was a good run. Maybe you guys could finish putting up your iron clad "American Only" wall, and stay the fuck inside of it? Because, we don't want you visiting the rest of the world.
I lament this, because the US for the longest time was the model of how it could be. If you guys can't keep a handle on this shit, the rest of us are so totally screwed it's not funny -- because not everyone started out with so many protections as what American enjoyed.
Hang your head in shame, because you now suck.
The ruling is based on controlling contraband inflow into detention areas as well as ensuring communicable diseases are not spread through the other detainees. The latter part I can get behind, not so much the search for contraband. Yes, it may introduce additional elements into the detainee population and I frankly have no idea about what dangers that presents to both detainees and staff, but essentially "innocent until proven guilty".
If someone is arrested for possession or has a history of such - there may be a reasonable cause, but without such cause the most I would support would be purely visual inspection - no touching - for biological reasons. That should be done by a medical person or someone with sufficient medical training in a private area.
As a side note - I am not impressed by the reporting article. The "freeholders" joke in particular does not support what I think would be standard reporting objectivity. Also, this line:
"Florence, who is a finance exec for a car dealership, is black – although we're not arguing that it was merely his race that led to his treatment, nor did he."
If no one is arguing that then WHY report it? All that's going to do is stir up public reaction. All parties need to abstain from a rush to justice as justice herself may get trampled in the process.
And how many of them are Bush appointees?
I'm afraid YOU didn't even read the article. In the case in question, a man was arrested for not paying a traffic ticket.
Except that he had. He even showed the officer documentation that proved he had paid the fine. The officer CHOSE TO IGNORE that documentation and had the person arrested.
That person spent a week in jail, and underwent 2 strip searches during that time BEFORE he had time with a judge at which point, the case was dismissed, because, oh look, he had DOCUMENTATION.
So my question for you is: which would you rather have: "innocent man jailed, humiliated, then set free"
or
"cop was a douchebag, relieved from duty"
SCOTUS is upholding "cop is a douchebag, please continue to be a douchebag because we WANT you to intimidate the nation, so the fucking sheep stay in their place."
And thank you for agreeing with them. Douchebag.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It should be noted that the Federal prison system and 11 states already ban this type of search. The SCOTUS decision may allow jurisdictions to do this, but local governments and state legislatures still have the power to ban this practice.
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."
Two points.
1. Mormons make up a tiny minority of CA's voting population. Prop 8 fell because vast numbers of non-Mormons opposed it. Are you prepared to attack everyone else in California who voted with the Mormons using the same language? Or the voters in the 38 other states who aren't Mormons but have still voted down same-sex marriage resolutions? Or are the Mormons simply the group it's politically acceptable to slander?
2. Just because someone has a differing view of a political issue doesn't make them hateful bigots. I've seen some of the Mormon Church's ads opposing prop 8. They say things like "Oppose Prop 8 because we think traditional marriage is the foundation of society and should be defended" and that isn't hate speech. Why don't post some links to some of the Mormon Prop 8 ads that you think rise to the level of true hate speech so the Slashdot audience can judge for itself.
It's ironic that many of the things said about the Mormons in the aftermath of the Prop 8 fight are far more vicious and nasty than anything the Mormons said about gays and lesbians during the Prop 8 fight. Your comment makes you sound far more like a hateful bigot than the Mormons.
"Every detainee ... be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed"
Any guesses for the equivalent for rectal probe?
Wow, this is so amazingly bad for everyone involved. It is clearly something that can be abused to "punish" almost anyone an officer wants to. Read the news about the TSA abusing the scanners to scan pretty women and imagine how bad things can get with this new power.This is only going to make people trust, like and support the police less here. Those that have the means and are bothered a lot by this will just move away. Those who cannot or will not might be encouraged to find justice in alternative ways.
I can see an awful potential for people moving toward a "make their own justice mentality". I know if I had a kid and some cop pulled them over and forced them to go through something as degrading as this for no real offense I would make it a point to deal out a good measure of justice to them and everyone involved. I'm not the violent sort but would be willing to get surveillance and gather enough information to cause as much trouble for the office, the searcher and anyone else involved to disrupt their life significantly. I'd be willing to make a significant investment of time and money to bring this about too. It's not in my nature to let people trample my rights like this and walk away unscathed. I can't believe I am alone in this feeling either. That's not good for the police, the searchers, or even the supreme court justices that voted for this thing. I know if I ran a bar, restaurant or any public establishment I would take down their names and forbid serving them in my place. That's how strongly I feel this is great injustice to the country.
You can be arrested for any reason. Non-arrestable offenses went away in 2006. Every crime, period, can put you in jail at the officer's discretion. So the hyperbole here isn't quite hyperbolic.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Some of you, like myself, may have never have been subjected to a strip search. I would like to direct your attention to a video link from my hometown. If you watch this, please keep in mind that this could be your mom, wife, sister, or daughter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xVP8XO1qKE I'm sorry to post this as anon, but I really don't care to be picked up for routine questioning. Yes, I'm a coward.
It's simple, gentlemen. How much does it mean to you to keep our freedoms intact? The governments plan has been obvious for years. Wake up.
We work as a team, die trying, rather than die a slave.
"I'm not interested!" aka Your affections do not effect me.
Using that logic, in the interest of safety and order, we're gonna need to go ahead and perform close visual examinations on people in Washington before they enter any government building. Senators love drugs and other paraphernalia. We'll get the DHS in on this, waterboard some congressmen until they die maybe, this'll be plenty of fun.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Myke
Sounds like an April First story.
I didn't read the justices' reasoning, but there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from deciding its own strip search rules. Any restrictions on search/seizure only apply to the federal government, not the states.
The Supreme Court did not "approve" of strip searches. They "approved" of the idea that states set arrest rules, not the federal government.
"Oppose Prop 8 because we think traditional marriage is the foundation of society and should be defended" and that isn't hate speech.
It's certainly bigotry, though.
Or are the Mormons simply the group it's politically acceptable to slander?
Stop your fucking trolling. They violated the law in a bigoted advertising campaign, there's no "slander" involved.
> 'Maintaining safety and order at detention centers requires the expertise of correctional officials.'
There - fixed that for you. Let me know if you need more help.
-Anon
Anybody else get this ad?:
How did they know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Victim_of_the_Mormons
"The movie was publicly condemned by leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in Europe and America. The church presidency complained to the American National Board of Censorship, demanding that all references to Mormonism in the title and content of the film be removed.[7] However, the LDS campaign to censor the film failed when it was released without changes. Utah governor William Spry said the Danish filmmakers were "only exceeded in their perversion of the truth by their absurdity,"[7] and banned the film in the state of Utah.[8] That effort also failed and the film was shown without alterations in Utah theaters that year.[9] The movie proved to be enormously successful internationally, not only because of an effective promotional campaign which emphasized the attempted ban, but also due to the popularity of its star, Valdemar Psilander."
"Don't break the law" he says...
Which law? Can I go through a normal day without breaking a law? Depending upon where I live, getting out of bed, taking a shower and making coffee might be breaking some law. There are so many laws now, with incomprehensible lawyer gibberish, that technically, turning on your TV at some time in the evening might be breaking a law.
Th e average citizen is in NO position to determine if they are or are not breaking a law with each passing breath.
And yes, as parent pointed out above, you can be arrested for any reason, and no reason needs to be given. And if you ask for a reason, then you are resisting arrest, which is probably a worse charge than the no reason you were originally being arrested for.
So basically, for no reason, you can be hauled in and strip searched. I hope you're wearing your clean undies.
And ladies.. Well, don't leave the house without your burka.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"The logic is that the people are being put into the population of prisons/jails with other prisoners, and thus could pose a risk (whether it be contraband, lice, disease, gang membership, etc.), and thus the jailers are justified in subjecting them to a strip search."
Yes, in fact, one of the things they are SPECIFICALLY looking for are tattoos.
I am reminded of the Witch Trials of long ago that we considered so barbaric in our "civilized" society.
One of the very first things done to the accused witch was to strip search them for "Devils Marks", or other details hidden on their body that might be signs of being in league with a demon.
Of course (as was often done with women), this was really a pretext to rape the accused, by the inquisitor. I wonder how far we are from that point in our backwards advancement towards a feudal society.
If we survive the next hundred years, history books written about this time will make us seem barbaric, and certainly insane. But this is assuming we will even have history books in 100 years.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"Oppose Prop 8 because we think traditional marriage is the foundation of society and should be defended" and that isn't hate speech.
It's certainly bigotry, though.
Your point of view. It's appalling how many people want to claim that, "if you oppose letting me have my way, you're a bigot." And I can produce plenty of quotes from Mormon leaders where they express compassion and loving kindness towards gays and lesbians; not to mention, the Mormon Church recently came out and recently took the side of gays and lesbians in getting an anti-discrimination measure passed in Salt Lake City. So if Mormons are bigots, they're very strange bigots, speaking respectfully of being helpful to the very people they're supposed to hate so much.
Or have you considered that perhaps they were motivated by something other than hatred and bigotry in the Prop 8 debate? Judging by your level of antipathy, I would guess not.
Or are the Mormons simply the group it's politically acceptable to slander?
Stop your fucking trolling. They violated the law in a bigoted advertising campaign, there's no "slander" involved.
Oh really? And precisely where and how did they break the law? Because given the amount of vitriol leveled against them during and after the Prop 8 campaign, I have no doubt that had they broken the law, Prop 8 supporters would have ensured that charges would have been filed. Where are the charges? Where's the court case? Your evidence, please, not just more profanity and unproven accusations.
Stop your fucking trolling. They violated the law in a bigoted advertising campaign, there's no "slander" involved.
They violated the law in not properly reporting non-monetary contributions in support of Proposition 8 and paid a $5500 fine. Mind sharing which advertising that was paid for by the Mormons was so bigoted?
Forcing someone to strip naked in front of other people in authority with no recourse, is degrading and dehumanizing much more so than simply restricting the rights of movement. If you don't believe me, tell me which one do you think is worse,
- me and my friends forcing your wife to strip nude in front of us
or
- me and my friends preventing your wife from leaving some room for a while
no one touching her in either case.
And when you see them doing something illegal, like speeding, or parking in a handicap space, call the cops.
And insist that *they* be strip searched.
mark "file under 'things I'd rather not watch'"
Instead of regurgitating a knee-jerk response to this decision, take some time to actually read it. It actually does make sense. Strip searches should be required for all prisoners that enter jails. What happened to the individual in this case is a terrible injustice, but it did not start with the prison's search. The victim in this case should absolutely sue the shit out of the county that did not clear out the bench warrant and he should get gazillions in compensation for that, but the searches should continue to be allowed.
You're arrested, not convicted yet. Who says you're even going to prison? Now... if they were to allow officers to search convicted felons that are going to an above-minimal-security jail, that would be easier to swallow.
Because of BURDEN on the poor police?
What's their opinion on happy endings?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
In Milwaukee we do our strip searches on the side of the road. Why go all they way down to jail?
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/county-investigating-milwaukee-police-strip-searches-j94ob8q-144319495.html
Well then, the UK needs to consolidate those into one comprehensive document instead of leaving it a giant mess that requires specialists. Software developers refactor their code all the time; lawmakers need to do the same.
Prove they cannot read the constitution anymore than the "liberals". In fact in this case the "liberals" seem to have been able to read it while the conservatives failed.
Reminds me of a bumpersticker, I saw on a truck with a bunch of Ron Paul stickers.
"Its not left vs right, its us vs the state"
The whole case was ridiculous anyway, so far fsked up to make the movie Brazil seem downright normal.
It also reminds me of the line in the recent heath care hearings where Kennedy was worried about how insurance companies would cope (with the mandate being struck down, while leaving the rest of the requirements in place). All I could think of was, that he wasn't doing his job, which was to decide if the law was constitutional or not. If the law puts the insurance companies out of business that is congresses problem not his.
The scale isn't shifted (would have to be a relative scale anyway), the very idea of "left vs right" is broken. Supposedly being pro-tobacco is "right", but being pro-marijuana is "left". Supposedly being anti-death penalty is "left", but being anti-abortion is "right".
"Left" isn't actually center. "Right" isn't actually extreme right. Along one axis (socialist vs capitalist?) maybe they are (even then that doesn't mean "center = good; extreme = bad" as the GP implies.), but on other axises "left" is right and "right" is left.
Political discourse needs to change in the US. Instead of using terms like "left" and "right" in ways that mean no more than brand names or rallying calls, issues need to be discussed on their own merits independent of whether they are a "left" or "right" issue.
Please help make this change and refuse to buy the myth of left vs right.
I have no sympathy for you Americans.
Nobody makes your country the way it is but yourselves.
And we don't want you coming here - Bringing your foibles & fears and contaminating our own country.
(Even though you still try to do so (contaminate) via international trade treaties and whatnot).
Beavis and Butthead Do America
The UK has a legal system based on precedent dating back to the Manga Carta. Written constitutions are for parvenues.
I'm seriously looking for jobs outside this country (anyone in Sweden need an IT worker that can fill just about any role but Senior?), but this one, in particular, strikes me as "SO WHAT?"
Seriously. Is your manly body so private that another man cannot lay eyes upon it? Is your womanly body so special that a female officer must not gaze upon you? As you're in the process of being thrown into a cell?
What the hell is all this nonsense about nudity? It's a damn body. The person examining you has one just like it. Get the hell over it.
Move on with ACTUAL rights violations, like being arrested without being charged.
First thing I am doing if I ever get arrested is stripping down. Just getting that part out of the way....
i blame the kenyan muslim obama and his socialist takeover of the us. certainly no republican justices would ever have passed such a terrible judgement, with their focus on freedom.
Insurance rates for your FEMALE drivers is going up.
Gigiddy.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.