Liberal Supreme Court Justices got this one right....

[CaptainHaplo]

On this one, Scalia, Roberts etc were wrong. The "left" side of the court got this one right. Personal liberty should not ever be sacrificed for "security".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/supreme-court-upholds-strip-searches-at-jails/

To be arrested wrongly is bad enough, to be subjected to this on top of it..... Inexcusable.

I can see where there are times when its necessary - but the court could have defined when its NOT....

[Osmium Steele]

I can see where there are times when its necessary - but the court could have defined when its NOT....

How can a couple of guards processing as many as a few dozen prisoners per day be expected to know with whom it is necessary or not?

One procedure, search them all. No one can scream discrimination.

Also, it is not the job of SCOTUS to define anything, merely to determine the constitutionality of a law or lower court ruling. If it needs fixing, send it back to the originator to be fixed, or chuck it all out the window.

The 10th ammendment, though battered, bruised, tattered and torn still exists.

[mookiemookie]

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.

Yeah, Justice Kennedy, because if only a jailor had put his finger in Timothy McVeigh's butt, he would have found the two tons of fertilizer he used to blow up the federal building. If only they could have seen Ziad Jarrah's weenis, they would have known without a doubt he was going to hijack that plane.

What a stupid and fearmongering statement to make.

[August]

The 10th ammendment, though battered, bruised, tattered and torn still exists.

Maybe but the 4th Amendment is in flames and sinking by the stern. If people can be strip searched for minor traffic violations then there can't be much left to our right to privacy.

[Platapus]

The slip opinion can be accessed from the United States Supreme Court webpage. I wanted to pull this as it will be an accurate report of the court's decision instead of what a news media chooses to publish.

It is my opinion that the court decided unwisely.

First of all, it is important to recognize that in this case the "strip search" was visual only. There were no fingers up the butt or flashlights shoved down the person's throat. They were required to undress prior to taking a mandatory shower. At that time the prisoners (multiple) were instructed to display specific parts of their body in a manner that allowed the guard to visually (no touching of the prisoner) inspect exposed and hidden parts of the prisoner's body. The term "strip search" may conjure up mental images of guards with lubed up gloves. That is not what happened in this instance.

Second, I was curious as to the purpose of viewing the naked body of the prisoners. Starting at Page 3 of the slip opinion states that the guards are looking for multiple things

1. Body markings. This include tattoos, scars and gang membership markings. Information on these are collected and added to the prisoner's identification file. In some cases, information on gang membership may be used for other purposes.

2. Wounds and signs of disease. Later in the slip opinion, it was remarked that from a medical safety standpoint it is important to find out if the prisoner is wounded or whether they have a possible communicative disease.

3. Contraband. Prison officials need to find out whether a prisoner is attempting to smuggle in any type of contraband. While they are showering, the prisoner's clothing is fully searched. The body of the prisoner is also visually (no touching) to see if contraband is attached or inserted in to the prisoner's body.

This was interesting as when I first read about this story, I thought the only reason for searching the naked body of a prisoner was solely to find contraband. It appears that there are other legitimate reasons.

Then there is the issue of searching "major crime" prisoners and not searching "minor crime" prisoners. Even in the majority opinion section of the slip opinion, there were concerns.

At the time of the search, the prison officials may not know what crimes the prisoner has been accused of. Actually even the DA may not know all the crimes at that time. It is not uncommon for people to be initially arrested for something minor and then have further charges added.

Suppose I get arrested for trying to out run the cops when I had a broken tail light. I am arrested for a relatively minor crime and under the new procedures I am not searched. While in jail, the police find evidence that I am a most violent mass murder child molester (add other major crimes). What are the guards going to do? Search me at this time (now that my status has changed from minor baddie to major baddie)? Far too late as I have already delivered my contraband and/or infected the other prisoners.

Unless one can guarantee that all charges are identified at the time of the arrest, the guards can't go back in time to search someone that later needed to be searched. Horses and locked barn doors being what they are.

If it turns out that the rules have been changed and minor offense prisoners are not searched, won't this open up a venue for smuggling in contraband?

Then there is the issue of the deterrence value of these search protocols. On page 7 of the Slip Opinion

The Court has also recognized that deterring the possession of contraband depends in part on the ability to conduct searches without predictable exceptions. In Hudson
v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517 (1984), it addressed the question of whether prison officials could perform random searches of inmate lockers and cells even without reason to suspect a particular individual of concealing a prohibited item. Id., at 522–523. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the practice, recognizing that “‘[f]or one to advocate that prison searches must be conducted only pursuant to an enunciated general policy or when suspicion is directed at a particular inmate is to ignore the realities of prison operation.’” If the prison population knows that the searches are not always conducted or are only conducted according to a patter, it is possible that this could be used to circumvent the security protocols of the prison. The medical concerns need to be considered.

Way down at the end of the Slip Opinion is Justice Alito's concurring statement:

I join the opinion of the Court but emphasize the limits of today’s holding. The Court holds that jail administrators may require all arrestees who are committed to the general population of a jail to undergo visual strip searches not involving physical contact by corrections officers. To perform the searches, officers may direct the arrestees to disrobe, shower, and submit to a visual inspection. As part of the inspection, the arrestees may be required to manipulate their bodies.

Undergoing such an inspection is undoubtedly humiliating and deeply offensive to many, but there are reason- able grounds for strip searching arrestees before they are admitted to the general population of a jail. As the Court explains, there is a serious danger that some detainees will attempt to smuggle weapons, drugs, or other contraband into the jail. Some detainees may have lice, which can easily spread to others in the facility, and some detainees may have diseases or injuries for which the jailis required to provide medical treatment. In addition, if a detainee with gang-related tattoos is inadvertently housed with detainees from a rival gang, violence may ensue.

Petitioner and the dissent would permit corrections officers to conduct the visual strip search at issue here only if the officers have a reasonable basis for thinking that a particular arrestee may present a danger to other detainees or members of the jail staff. But as the Court explains, corrections officers are often in a very poor position to make such a determination, and the threat to the health and safety of detainees and staff, should the officers miscalculate, is simply too great. Justice Alito also wrote

It is important to note, however, that the Court does not hold that it is always [Alito's emphasis] reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could be held in available facilities apart from the general population. My opinion:

If a prisoner accused of a minor crime can be housed in separate facilities or even released from custody on bond, there is no need for a naked search.

However, if circumstances dictate that the prisoner accused of a minor crime will be housed either in general population or in a circumstance where he or she will have contact with the general population, then I believe that they need to be processed like any other prisoner in general population. This is not only for contraband but also for the medical and identification purposes listed above.

[gimpy117]

well yeah, you are a prisoner, and frankly it's common knowledge that items can be hidden under clothes

[vienna]

The slip opinion can be accessed from the United States Supreme Court webpage. I wanted to pull this as it will be an accurate report of the court's decision instead of what a news media chooses to publish.


Thank you for being one of the few people who take the time to actually seek out, read, and consider the actual decision instead of relying on the 30 second "in depth" news report, the "talk show screed", or the "talking head" analysis. Your presentation properly puts into context what was only a headline in the media. I have also found that what the media chooses to report and what the actual gist of a matter entails are quite different...

Given the aboce, I agree the decision was correct. Also, it appears to be sufficiently narrow as to exclude abuse as lawful...

As to the "Liberals getting it right", that's probably until they decide against what one agrees with; there's a quote from a Kipling poem about the treatment of soldiers I often think applies to those who sit on the court and the fickleness of the American public:

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.

For some, today the Liberal wing of the court are the heroes; tomorrow, they may be the brutes...

...

[Bilge_Rat]

It is my opinion that the court decided unwisely.


I presume you meant to say wisely? :hmmm:

I have to agree with the courts on this one, simply because you need to have an objective standard that is practical to apply. Placing prison guards in a situation where they have to decide with each inmate, which warrant a search and which don't is unworkable. In the long run, it is a better to have a standard treatment which is applied to everyone in that lockup.

[August]

I presume you meant to say wisely? :hmmm:

I have to agree with the courts on this one, simply because you need to have an objective standard that is practical to apply. Placing prison guards in a situation where they have to decide with each inmate, which warrant a search and which don't is unworkable. In the long run, it is a better to have a standard treatment which is applied to everyone in that lockup.

Lets not confuse inmates with prisoners. The latter have not been convicted of anything yet.

I don't understand why they would allow the mixing of the two.

[Gargamel]

If you stop searching minor criminals, the that opens an easy avenue for smuggling into jails/prisons. If my non criminal mind thought this up, I know the gangs are already trying.

Have two of your 'minions' get into a Fight, both get arrested. Get placed in jail,remove contraband for hiding spot, pass on. Leave jail 5 days later. Rinse, repeat.

Having responded to many many EMS calls inside prisons, I know for damn sure I want eveybody in there searched, for my own safety.

[Gargamel]

Lets not confuse inmates with prisoners. The latter have not been convicted of anything yet.

I don't understand why they would allow the mixing of the two.

Locally, our county lockup holds both short term and long term prisoners. Not all counties work like this, but many do.

[CaptainHaplo]

Here is the problem - you have people who are ACCUSED of a crime - aka "suspects" - housed with those CONVICTED of crimes - the "prisoners". Ultimately, many "suspects" will be exonorated. They should not be housed in "General Population" since they are not Criminals at the time. There should be a seperate housing area for those awaiting trial.

[Stealhead]

They are all locked up the same place in most jails(priors and non and in that they are all suspected until proven guilty) and can interact that means that they will have chances to exchange contraband.Drugs in particular are very valuable to gangs inside prisons and jails.An organized criminal syndicate can easily find people that have no serious past and get them to get arrested for a minor crime in order to get inside a lock up if they know that certain types of people will not be searched then that person will meet his or her contact and exchange the contraband and it just into the system scot free and they will pay the slope for their services.Next you have guys that have been busted for parole violations and have been in prison and will be going back they will take advantage of no searching policy and have some slope buddy of theirs get into the lock up and then more contraband. You can not even fully trust the corrections officers which is why people are always searched when they have been moved outside the facility in particular.

What they do is look at your anus to see if anything has been "kiestered" because it will be plainly visible and they tell you to squat down because if you have a blade up there you can not do this without hurting yourself.
If you are over 30 and have had physical from a doctor you got much more violation than a prison gets during a "strip" search.Yes it sucks because if you go to jail charged or not you might get it done but it has perfectly understandable reasons for being done.Hell I would feel worse for the guy having to look up my ass than having my ass looked at to be honest.

What Haplo suggests would cost billions of dollars because every single lock up in the country would need to be modified and who knows how much it would cost jails and prisons if the court had gone the other way because it would result in a massive spike contraband which would result in more violence thanks to a flood of weapons and drugs into the system.Not to mention it would not completely prevent the chance of exchange as there are always corrupt guards to aid in transfer.I agree with Platypus on this one;


"My opinion:

If a prisoner accused of a minor crime can be housed in separate facilities or even released from custody on bond, there is no need for a naked search.

However, if circumstances dictate that the prisoner accused of a minor crime will be housed either in general population or in a circumstance where he or she will have contact with the general population, then I believe that they need to be processed like any other prisoner in general population. This is not only for contraband but also for the medical and identification purposes listed above."



There is a separate area for those waiting trail it is called jail.Some wino sissy got upset the guy had a lot of previous convictions so he was not a 1000% innocent person anyway some jerk lawyer just gave the idea to sue for something that really is not all that bad and actually is done with the safety of those in the jail in mind and is less invasive than a physical from a doctor
boo freaking hoo take it like a man if you are innocent you will be proven so the experience will build character and you might find out that you have hemorrhoids or another aliment for free.Of course they do not stick any fingers in so they cant tell you if you have hernia or bad prostate if it bugs you that bad fart in the dudes face that is fighting the power."You are violating my rights sir in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson I release flatus in your general direction." Take that to the supreme court of gas.

The "shot" heard round the world.
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/The_Papal_Belvedere.jpg

sorry for the typos I am no professorial cartoonist and made that in roughly 2 minutes.

[CaptainHaplo]

What Haplo suggests would cost billions of dollars because every single lock up in the country would need to be modified and who knows how much it would cost jails and prisons if the court had gone the other way because it would result in a massive spike contraband which would result in more violence thanks to a flood of weapons and drugs into the system.

Steelhead,

We will be forced to agree to disagree on this I fear. Ultimately, we are supposed to be a country of innocent until proven guilty. Yet the way things are done, you are TREATED as guilty regardless. That is a violation of the right to freedom. Now I understand why some people are held until a hearing, and I agree it is a necessity. But just like the right to a "speedy" trial, this further erodes the differing line between those accused and those convicted.

I understand the ruling and its reasoning, I simply disagree. Treating an accused as if he were already a criminal - housing him or her with general pop - especially as "indefinitely" as it sometimes takes to get their constitutionally mandated "speedy" trial - is a travesty to the ideals of the right of freedom and the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

As for cost - sure it would be expensive - but will we watch our rights disappear because our government says "oh that is too expensive"? Heavens forfend!

on a side note - excellent work on the image. You did that in 2 minutes - and I could draw for 2 days and not have something nearly that good. Well done!

[mookiemookie]

Maybe if we cut down on the sheer numbers of people in jails and prisons, we'd have enough room to segregate those awaiting trial and those serving a sentence. Maybe if we say, got rid of the destructive and counter-productive "War on Drugs" we may accomplish that. :hmmm:

[August]

Maybe if we cut down on the sheer numbers of people in jails and prisons, we'd have enough room to segregate those awaiting trial and those serving a sentence. Maybe if we say, got rid of the destructive and counter-productive "War on Drugs" we may accomplish that. :hmmm:

+1 :salute:

[Stealhead]

That would be a start if more people where aware that due to mandatory minimum sentences in place for drug offenses which means that prisons have no choice when over crowded to release those not serving under mandatory length terms they have no choice but to let these people out and often these are the guys that committed violent crimes some have even said do not let me out!But that is a whole new can of worms.



As to CaptainHaplo we certainly will disagree because you are assuming that this occurs to everyone in the jail and depending on the set up in some cases it may but in many jails they do a separate section for the "drunks" and minor offenders the few hours in jail folks these do not even get a uniform or anything and in some jails they spend more time sitting as one might at the DMV than in a true cell and will not get searched in the "lousy" manner which is a necessary evil if the person is going to be in the jail long enough to have to stay in the true general population then though they have not been convicted they will have to deal with being in jail yes it might some what trample on your rights but not that heavily most people can bail out of jail and you are still getting your due process but if you are in a jail in the general population it stands to reason that the administration has to keep the thing safe for inmates and employees which means that they must insure that people are not ill or hiding contraband and to classify gang members(many jails segregate the gangs for obvious reasons.)

Furthermore your idea of having separate units for those convicted and awaiting transfer and those not seems like a good idea it would fail miserably unless the units where at two separate locations which would be the only way to ensure that the two groups do not interact in any manner what so ever.That would cost as I said billions of dollars in construction and transportation costs we are talking about every county jail in the nation here (you'd need two separate fleets for each group).That would also mean the raising of taxes in order to pay for all the new buildings and fleets of vehicles needed and the extra correctional officers needed.

You can have your view that is fine but I thin you are failing to take into consideration the massive costs that "fully protecting" ones rights would cost.
In the end yes it is lousy but it is from a cost effective and safety stand point the best option.

[August]

I don't see what is so safe about putting accused (and therefore possibly innocent) people into a prison cell along with convicted murderers and rapists.

I don't care one bit if drugs or other contraband get into prison. Keeping them sober is not worth trampling on the rights of innocent people.

Nor do I buy the cost argument. If cost effectiveness is really that important then why not just shoot people accused of a crime? After all just think about how cost effective a bullet would be compared with jail room and board, not to mention trials and lawyers and the rest of it... :yep:

[Stealhead]

Well you should because the majority of people in prison will be allowed back into society at some point and they are allowed to abuse drugs and perform criminal enterprise unchecked then they will have only gotten worse while inside and then when they get out they will come kicking your door in high on PCP and you will have a time putting them down even with a 3 inch magnum 12 gauge.(I can arrange you have a conversation with my brother whose entire squad unloaded on an PCP high Iraqi insurgent they had to blow him apart because even though mortally wounded they just do not stop nor easily will a dude high on meth either and they will come round to someones door after a few years of getting high and having fun in Augusts no searching for contraband prison and they will unleash their scum on society thanks August for the great idea.)

And by not caring about controlling those who need control (the goal of prison in the first place) the inmates who are just trying to do their time and pay their debt to society will have their rights trampled which they still have as citizens of this nation.So the best solution to the problem is to be smart and avoid unneeded interaction with LE in the first place then you don't run risk of getting falsely arrested in the first place.


"If cost effectiveness is really that important then why not just shoot people accused of a crime? After all just think about how cost effective a bullet would be compared with jail room and board, not to mention trials and lawyers and the rest of it..."

Because such a thing would be a clear violation of rights set forth in the Constitution.:03:

The strip search is a necessary action it protects everyone yes it sucks(but not all that bad for crying out loud I can think of few other tings more worthy of the worlds smallest violin playing a tune) but it really does not violate the rights of the accused because they are in a point of the due process system that requires they be held in a controlled manner if so deemed by a judge if they did not perform such actions we'd have seen some other case sooner or later where a person accused got killed by by another accused but not yet convicted with a contraband weapon that he smuggled it can happen and more than likely already has at some point.

In the end it matters little because it has been ruled on already and they made the correct ruling.

[August]

So the best solution to the problem is to be smart and avoid unneeded interaction with LE in the first place then you don't run risk of getting falsely arrested in the first place.

That is no solution at all. False arrest is a violation of a persons rights. People have been falsely arrested in their own homes. How does one be "smart" and avoid that?

Besides those cops work for me. I am not hiding from them so I can avoid being falsely arrested. What other freedoms do you advocate not exercising just in case the government tries to violate them?

Because such a thing would be a clear violation of rights set forth in the Constitution.:03:

So does being strip searched if the right to privacy still means anything anymore.

(I can arrange you have a conversation with my brother whose entire squad unloaded on an PCP high Iraqi insurgent they had to blow him apart because even though mortally wounded they just do not stop nor easily will a dude high on meth either and they will come round to someones door after a few years of getting high and having fun in Augusts no searching for contraband prison and they will unleash their scum on society thanks August for the great idea.)

And thanks right back Steelhead for that very fine strawman you built. It invokes the specter of drug maddened ex convicts running around committing all sorts of murder and mayhem and even terrorists!

Unfortunately though I never said that prisoners didn't need to be controlled so your strawman fails.

Bottom line here is if drugs are a problem in a jail it's because the prisoners aren't being guarded closely enough to prevent them from having the time and opportunity to do them, not because the inspection of new arrivals isn't intrusive enough.

The strip search is a necessary action it protects everyone yes it sucks(but not all that bad for crying out loud I can think of few other tings more worthy of the worlds smallest violin playing a tune) but it really does not violate the rights of the accused because they are in a point of the due process system that requires they be held in a controlled manner if so deemed by a judge.

Oh bull, it doesn't protect anyone, your sarcasm notwithstanding. It's kind of naive to think that through incoming detainees is the only way a convict can get illegal drugs.

now it's nice to see that you're ok with some of your rights being ignored and violated, i'm sure that the powers that be appreciate your support, but myself and many others are not. Rule number one in dealing with any government: Rights not that are not jealously guarded are soon legislated away. You let one lapse and it just weakens the rest.

Also seeing a judge first is not a prerequisite to being strip searched. The law can hold a person for up to, what, 72 hours? without even bringing charges, let alone getting a court involved. That's long enough to be strip searched, and also long enough to be stabbed or assaulted by one of those convicts. Do you really think it's ok to put innocent people in that scenario?

Personally not for all the smuggled drugs in the world.

In the end it matters little because it has been ruled on already and they made the correct ruling.

It has indeed been ruled on but whether they made the correct ruling is a matter of opinion. Just remember that it wouldn't be the first time their decisions have been overturned.

[mookiemookie]

It's not often that I say this, but well said August. Couldn't agree more.

[CaptainHaplo]

You can have your view that is fine but I thin you are failing to take into consideration the massive costs that "fully protecting" ones rights would cost.In the end yes it is lousy but it is from a cost effective and safety stand point the best option.

It is the view that "cost effective and safety" outweigh personal freedom and liberty that is so very wrong.
To quote Benjamin Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The cost of our liberty has been paid in BLOOD. Some of that blood has been shed by many who are here themselves or who have lost friends to secure that liberty. Our nation was formed because patriots who believed in those liberties fought and in many cases died for them. So while it may be considered "offensive" to some, I will say it anyway:

The day the government puts a dollar amount above the freedoms and liberties secured by the blood, sweat and tears of the patriots who serve the nation, it no longer has the right or authority to rule.

[Bubblehead1980]

The Left wing of the court had this one right. I was arrested for a DUI my first year of college(charges were dropped) I spent 8 hours in jail because I refused sobriety tests.Should I have been strip searched for a misdemeanor offense? NO! People are arrested for the most minor things and should not be subjected to a strip search just because they are arrested. I have been on plenty of ride alongs with friends who are cops back home.Where I am from, they only strip search you if you are put into the actual jail not just the detention facility when you arrested and waiting to be bailed out.Strip searches occur in the detention facility when a person is arrested on a drug charge etc, I could find that reasonable but to strip search everyone who is arrested is pure garbage and kudos to the liberal justices for getting something right, for once.

[CaptainHaplo]

The Left wing of the court had this one right. I was arrested for a DUI my first year of college(charges were dropped) I spent 8 hours in jail because I refused sobriety tests.Should I have been strip searched for a misdemeanor offense? NO! People are arrested for the most minor things and should not be subjected to a strip search just because they are arrested. I have been on plenty of ride alongs with friends who are cops back home.Where I am from, they only strip search you if you are put into the actual jail not just the detention facility when you arrested and waiting to be bailed out.Strip searches occur in the detention facility when a person is arrested on a drug charge etc, I could find that reasonable but to strip search everyone who is arrested is pure garbage and kudos to the liberal justices for getting something right, for once.

Bubblehead - we agree on something... Is that scary or what?!?!?!?! :yeah:

[Tribesman]

I was arrested for a DUI my first year of college(charges were dropped) I spent 8 hours in jail because I refused sobriety tests.Should I have been strip searched for a misdemeanor offense? NO!
How much obvious bull can that "legal expert" put in one short story?:doh: