Has the Supreme Court gone bizarro?

carlfense said:
knapplc said:
This isn't just talking about gen-pop prisoners in the State Pen, we're talking about anyone even suspected of a crime being strip-searched.
Click to expand...
The probable cause standard remains the same.

The opinion basically states that this applies to prisoners who will be released into the general jail population. It surprises me that this was not already settled law.
Click to expand...
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. There's the county lockup (jail) and the state pen (prison). The term "general population" most often refers to the prison population, not those incarcerated overnight for a minor offense. Nor does this law differentiate those incarcerated for a few months on minor issues. We're talking any person arrested. Anyone. For any reason.

You shoplift a $10 DVD, you're going to get strip-searched.

Involved in a fight, even if you didn't start it? Strip-searched.

Public intoxication? Strip-searched.

Even if your arrest were to be thrown out in court, you would have already been strip-searched.

 
knapplc said:
carlfense said:
knapplc said:
This isn't just talking about gen-pop prisoners in the State Pen, we're talking about anyone even suspected of a crime being strip-searched.
Click to expand...
The probable cause standard remains the same.

The opinion basically states that this applies to prisoners who will be released into the general jail population. It surprises me that this was not already settled law.
Click to expand...
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. There's the county lockup (jail) and the state pen (prison). The term "general population" most often refers to the prison population, not those incarcerated overnight for a minor offense. Nor does this law differentiate those incarcerated for a few months on minor issues. We're talking any person arrested. Anyone. For any reason.

You shoplift a $10 DVD, you're going to get strip-searched.

Involved in a fight, even if you didn't start it? Strip-searched.

Public intoxication? Strip-searched.

Even if your arrest were to be thrown out in court, you would have already been strip-searched.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the bold.

Do you support an individualized suspicion standard? A seriousness of offense standard? Should it never be permitted? Those aren't supposed to be loaded questions. I'm interested in your specific opinion.

 
It takes much more strict definition than any of those examples. If we simply give the police the power to BC search anyone, that can and will be abused.

 
knapplc said:
It takes much more strict definition than any of those examples. If we simply give the police the power to BC search anyone, that can and will be abused.
Click to expand...
They still have to meet the probable cause standard. In general, "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime."

That's a bit different that what your statement seems to imply.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look at the examples given in the article:

According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.


A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

Justice Kennedy responded that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.
Click to expand...

You cannot convince me that the police have a need to strip-search leash-law violators, or those who have failed to pay child support. Individuals should have the right to remain unmolested by the police, even if they've broken minor laws. The reasoning behind this is fear-based reactionary nonsense. Citing the 9/11 psychos and Timothy McVeigh to explain the rationale to strip-search a person arrested for a noisy muffler? That's nonsense.

 
knapplc said:
Look at the examples given in the article:

According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.


A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

Justice Kennedy responded that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.
Click to expand...

You cannot convince me that the police have a need to strip-search leash-law violators, or those who have failed to pay child support. Individuals should have the right to remain unmolested by the police, even if they've broken minor laws. The reasoning behind this is fear-based reactionary nonsense. Citing the 9/11 psychos and Timothy McVeigh to explain the rationale to strip-search a person arrested for a noisy muffler? That's nonsense.
Click to expand...
I agree with your general sentiment but disagree in the exact application. I don't think people should be arrested for the listed offenses at all. They should be cited and released. (You should see some of the warrant requests that I have declined. Failure to clear sidewalks, a junk car in a yard, etc.) If they fail to appear/fail to comply THEN a bench warrant will be issued.

However, once in state custody the safety and security of the jail population and guards trumps prisoners' 4th Amendment rights. (Well, sort of. It's probably more accurate to say that in context very intrusive searches are reasonable.)

Anyways. I see your point and I very much appreciate what you are saying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless of whether you agree that people should be arrested for these offenses or not, they are arrested for these offenses. Once arrested, this ruling gives the police a blanket ability to BC search anyone they please. We can rely on the goodness of the police not to abuse this power, and in a perfect world we'd be OK, but this isn't that world. Power is abused, often.

 
knapplc said:
Regardless of whether you agree that people should be arrested for these offenses or not, they are arrested for these offenses. Once arrested, this ruling gives the police a blanket ability to BC search anyone they please. We can rely on the goodness of the police not to abuse this power, and in a perfect world we'd be OK, but this isn't that world. Power is abused, often.
Click to expand...
Where would you set the standard?

 
That's a many, many paragraphs-long answer, and I don't want to write that any more than you probably want to read it. :D

Further, without much research that I'm not going to perform, I don't know what current standards are on such searches. All I'm willing to say is, this goes too far. Of that I'm quite certain.

 
knapplc said:
That's a many, many paragraphs-long answer, and I don't want to write that any more than you probably want to read it. :D

Further, without much research that I'm not going to perform, I don't know what current standards are on such searches. All I'm willing to say is, this goes too far. Of that I'm quite certain.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. That's reasonable.

 
The 4th Amendment state "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."

I agree with Carl, if you think the strip search doesn't fit the crime, then maybe the punishment of being arrested is too high, that wasn't the case the supreme court was given. Here is a nonterriost example...I was arrested once for driving on a suspended license when I got back from college. While it wasn't upheld I still had to be driven down to the county prison and put through the system. While I was there I was patted down 3 times by different officers to ensure I didn't have any contraband on my persons. I work at a Vet hospital and had a syringe with needle on it that they missed every time. I wasn't put into General Pop. but had I been I could have seriously injured or killed someone with that. Had I been strip searched and given prison blues clothing. I think you said some where else that a persons personal rights only go until they infringe on someone eases. I think someones life or well being trumps someones right to an unpleasant strip search. And that person that is getting strip searched because they were arrested for a reason. While I share your feelings toward someone getting strip searched for leash laws, noise complaints, or other low level reasons, I don't disagree that the safety of the prison/ jail population should trump the embarrassment of the strip search. The probable cause is the possibility of someone intentionally breaking the law in an effort to bring in a weapon or other contraband hidden under clothing or in other orifices. If we can't profile people at the airport, then how can we profile the people who get arrested. Who gets to say who needs to be searched, if everyone is searched than no one can be singled out.

 
If I'm a cop, the last thing I really want to do just because I have that right is to strip search some dude. The end.

 
JJHusker1 said:
I can sort of see it for people going into general population jail but not simply for being arrested with no reasonable suspicion of concealed contraband. IMO this is a ridiculous decision.

carlfense, I may have misread the link but it appeared to me the conservative justices sided with the majority and those I consider liberal dissented. What am I missing? This doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...
It has been a trend of the conservative judges of late. They seem very willing to give the gov power to do almost anything in the interests of 'security' or would grant power to the rich and powerful(I'm referring to the eminent domain ruling not that long ago where a municipality can use eminent domain to take private land to use to develop if the municipality thinks it would benefit the tax base)

 
For the safety of the jailer, they better NOT strip search me

My body IS a lethal weapon

They will all die of laughter when they see my scrawny self

 
Back
Top