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...ches-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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It is my opinion that the court decided unwisely.

I presume you meant to say wisely?

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]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I presume you meant to say wisely?

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

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.