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?
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?
This has nothing to do with being convicted of a crime, this could be somebody brought to jail for speeding. The funny part is the feds and many states already ban this practice the could just said it's allowable. States are still free to ban the practice.
No sir I dont like it.
'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.
Been to Virginia lately
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.
Sounds like you may still be mad about this.
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.
Arrest != conviction. The man in question was wrongfully arrested (for a fine that he had already paid). On the radio this morning they were also talking about strip searches for offenses such as riding a bike without an audible bell and walking a dog without a leash.
The worst thing about this ruling is that it provides police with yet another way to silence people who are inconvenient. Protesters, people who record video of police brutality, and anyone else are now at risk of punitive strip searches. The only sliver of hope in this ruling is that it doesn't overturn existing laws that prohibit strip searches in minor cases. We'll just have to see if legislators try to dismantle those in the next wave of "tough on crime" election year bullshit.
This will also apply to arrested and "detained" people, not just convicts. What this means (and how this will be used) is a form of harassment of protestors, especially when their more expensive personal goods "go missing" into a cop's pocket.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
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.
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."
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
You've never been caught for it as either a foreigner or out of stater.
I'm Canadian. The officer gave me an option of paying up front or going to jail and wait for a judge if I wanted to contest the ticket. All because there's no agreement between their state and Ontario so if he let me go I could simply not pay the fine and that's that.
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.
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.
Not convicted, arrested. First, the bar is *a lot* lower to arrest someone than to convict them. Innocent people get arrested all the time. This also not only for prison, it's for jail. Jail is "I got drunk and maybe a little stupid so they tossed me in here overnight", jail is "I went to this protest, and the cops decided to take a few of us in", jail is "They don't even have enough to charge me, but they can hold me here for 24 hours". A significant percentage of people who go to jails in a large city never even get *charged* with anything, let alone convicted. I know guys who've spent a night or two in jail here or there who have security clearances. Given the number of years I lived in New Orleans, and the number of mildly stupid things I've done int eh French Quarter after a long nigh, I count myself pretty lucky not to spent a night or two there myself.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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."
.... 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.
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.
I wonder if the cops only arrested him to get him strip searched at the prison and spare themselves the hassle of getting a search warrant.
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
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.
FTFA:
After all, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent to the majority ruling, additional amicus curiae briefs revealed that strip searches have been inflicted upon citizens collared for driving with a noisy muffler or a busted headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell – even for violating a dog-leash law.
Breyer also wrote of "a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years, who was arrested for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration," who was strip-searched.
Do those seem like crimes for which one should be additionally punished by a strip search? Of course the real question is why would someone not convicted of any crime, and only accused of minor offenses, put into GP in a prison? IANAP so I'm not very familiar with prisons.
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.
I got thrown in Jail in New Orleans for making an "illegal left hand turn between 12 and 4 PM". I was a bit earlier than normal on my driving route, my GF was griping on me, and I didn't notice.
Yes, I was as polite as can be to the cop who pulled me over. No, I had no other charges or warrants or anything. I had an out-of-state license, and that was enough.
So have fun with your police strip search next time your SO distracts you in traffic at the wrong time.
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.
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
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."