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.
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.
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.
You can't be arrested for jaywalking (and thus no strip search), but all attractive people will now also be charged with resisting arrest.
Been to Virginia lately
This case was about a man who was suspected of having unpaid fines. He had, in fact, already paid the fines and had the documentation to prove it with him at the time of his arrest.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
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.
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.
It's even worse than that.
Not only had he paid the fine, and not only did he show the officer a sealed letter from the state saying he had paid it, but having an unpaid fine is not an arrestable offense (in New Jersey, where this all happened)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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.
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."
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.
It seems to me there's no such thing as a "not arrestable offense" anymore.
Simply requesting a complaint form at your local police station can result in an arrest these days, as fucked up and horrifying that is.
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
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.
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.
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
In 2006 the concept of arrestable vs. non-arrestable offenses was abolished in the USA. They are now grouped as "indictable" and "summary" offenses. If you are caught performing a summary offense (like jaywalking, or any traffic violation), the officer has the option of issuing a citation immediately, or arresting you, strip searching you, holding you in jail for up to 48 hours, then bringing you before a judge and having the judge write you a citation. At this point they can either continue to hold you until you pay the fine, or release you if the judge trusts you to pay up.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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."