5 ms·

Justices Approve Strip-Searches for Any Offense

35 points by switz 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
darklajid 15y ago
If I may play the devil's advocate here: Can you be against this decision if you're not against the 'nude scanner' thing the TSA uses to inspect you closely, while virtually undressed? And turned around, if the TSA can do it and no public outcry stops them, is this decision surprising? It seems this is just the slope letting gravity do most of the work here..?
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
IANAL, I'm a libertarian and against all forms of ad-hoc searches, but I think the government has a point here. As I understand this the goal is to control contraband and weapons entering the prison system. I don't see any way you could get around having to to search all those entering. But that's a different situation than being searched for a crime. If I understood this correctly, this is simply an administrative search, not a search in search of evidence. Or put another way, if you get arrested for a joint and during the search the cops find cocaine, I'm not sure that would mean much of anything. (except you lose your cocaine) But I'm probably completely off-base.
- cheez 15y ago
  Sure, let's see what happens when you get strip searched for mundane things like being too noisy.
  - kijeda 15y ago
    Isn't the issue, then, that you shouldn't be put in jail for such offences, rather than making arguments concerning strip searching?
    - darklajid 15y ago
      How about - both.
    - cheez 15y ago
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" This applies especially and probably mostly to the police and government. Police indirectly get more money for more arrests. Therefore, arrest more people. You should be glad when you get a driving ticket. It's a proxy for an arrest or two that could have happened instead.
endianswap 15y ago
Idealistically this is something that I would support, because anyone who has been arrested and will be put into the general population of a jail carries several risks with them inside (the article mentions some of these: weapons, drugs, other contraband). But, that entire thought is predicated on a thought that I would argue is counter to reality: that people are only arrested when there is good cause to detain that individual. Basically, if the entirety of the law enforcement and judicial system worked, then I wouldn't have a problem with this, but if I have to fear being arrested for taking a photograph of a police officer, then I feel that the strip-searching would apply to those who shouldn't necessarily be in jail in the first place...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mikecane 15y ago
I wonder if in NYC all the people arrested from now on at Occupy Wall Street will be strip searched. I do not like this decision.
tomp 15y ago
The title is misleading; IANAL, but according to the article text, the Supreme Court approved that officials can search people before putting them into prison, only for offences that can put you into prison! I'm quite astonished that this wasn't the case already, i.e. they take your freedom, but they don't check what you're carrying with you?!?
- mikecane 15y ago
  It applies to general population of a jail too. Let's say you are arrested in NYC. You can be taken to a holding cell at a local precinct. Then you are shuttled to downtown, to a holding cell in the court building. You go from being one person in a precinct cell to going into the "general population" of other people waiting to see a judge. Before being put in that larger holding cell, you will be subjected to a strip search now thanks to the Supreme Court. And if your offense is something as minor as not cleaning up your dog's poop? Is that fair?
  - tomp 15y ago
    I think the real question is why do you get jailed for not cleaning your dog's poop. That would never happen in Europe (I hope).
- darklajid 15y ago
  You can board these precious airplanes by asking for a pat down (although discouraged?). I'm clueless about the laws in the US. Can you go to jail for example if you pee in a park? Drive too fast? Are too drunk on the streets to find home? If any of these lead to a yes, do you think those people should be forced to strip in front of someone? Because they, obviously, are bad guys?
  - 18pfsmt 15y ago
    To answer your questions: 1) Public urination is a ticket (got one in college, many years ago). 2) Speeding is a ticket unless you are going excessively fast (100mph in 30mph zone; these numbers vary among states). 3) Too drunk on the street will get you taken to the drunk tank to sober up/ sleep it off (not jail).
jerrya 15y ago
I was driving my car two weeks ago, when I was pulled over for failure to pay a ticket (the officer and their db was in error.) That night before heading out on the road, I shoved some rock cocaine in a balloon up my ass, so I was okay with going to jail because I could make some money. I was thrown into the hoosegow, (I'd asked for the clink) but not until I was strip searched. Last week, the cops came by for failure to pay child support (I had paid, in fact it's automatically deducted but my ex was playing games again.) As I saw the black and white pull up to the curb, I quickly shoved some spoons up my ass, damn, cops found those during the strip search. Last night, my dog and I were playing in the park when I saw some cops wander by, yep, I got nabbed for walking the dog off the leash. Luckily before going out with the dog I had shoved a cell phone up my ass, but damn, the cops found that too. Some potential examples cited by dissenting judges in the lower courts and by Justice Breyer on Monday included violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  I don't really know where you're going with this..
  - jerrya 15y ago
    It's a response to arguments that the government has a legitimate need to strip search everyone, regardless of what the charges are against them. The notion some guy pulled over for failure to pay a speeding ticket, or arrested for failure to pay child support, or arrested for having a dog off leash (really?) has paraphernalia shoved up his ass should seem terribly questionable. The argument the government has a need to strip search everyone, should give way to a realization that probably is not true. As I point out, these are not my wild examples, but examples specifically mentioned by Justice Breyer in dissent.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 15y ago
[In his concurrence] Chief Justice Roberts, quoting from an earlier decision, said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.’” It's a bit late for that. The facts of this case speak for themselves: Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” on indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed. Held: The judgment is affirmed. I have visited jails, as part of a film crew. they are grim places, and a lot of the people who inhabit them are, frankly, villains. I've also seen collections of confiscated weapons manufactured from scrap materials whose creativity and effectiveness would put most hackers to shame. I can see the pragmatic reasoning that led the court to err on the side of law enforcement officer safety, and indeed inmate safety. To my mind, the problem is that the nature of Florence's treatment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment for a minor administrative violation. But legally speaking it wasn't cruel because it had a practical rather than a punitive basis; and it wasn't unusual because everyone is subjected to the same degree of inspection at those facilities; and he hadn't been punished, because he hadn't been convicted; and it wasn't relevant because his counsel (correctly) focused on on other constitutional protections. And this is the problem: our constitutional rights are embedded in a procedural framework so inflexible that innocent persons can be mistakenly subjected to the most degrading treatment, and find themselves without a legal remedy because of the legal equivalent of incorrectly scoped variable (not been convicted, therefore he hasn't been punished). this ruling is civil rights disaster, and the problem will get worse before it gets better. Regular HNers will know that I'm usually on the side of precedent even in cases where I don't like the decision. I am still not sure what Mr Florence's attorney could or should have done differently, and it would hardly have been appropriate to argue that all detainess should be held in solitary confinement pending the disposition of their case, for example - some cases need time to resolve, and jails exist in the first place because society has an interest in detaining some kinds of possible criminals in advance of trial. I haven't read the full opinion or the briefs, nor have I read enough criminal procedure or constitutional law to come up with a good alternative; so I'm speaking from my gut instead of my head, which I don't like to do. But it seems to me that this exposes a weakness in our constitution's tendency to define procedures rather than interests. The reasoning is sound, but the outcome is unconscionable in a free society. I am deeply disappointed.
medusa666 15y ago
I'm confident that the vast majority of those who agree with this decision are white, and therefore believe (probably correctly) that it will never happen to them. But if you're a darker-hued, equally law-abiding citizen ...

35 points by switz 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

If I may play the devil's advocate here: Can you be against this decision if you're not against the 'nude scanner' thing the TSA uses to inspect you closely, while virtually undressed? And turned around, if the TSA can do it and no public outcry stops them, is this decision surprising? It seems this is just the slope letting gravity do most of the work here..?

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

IANAL, I'm a libertarian and against all forms of ad-hoc searches, but I think the government has a point here. As I understand this the goal is to control contraband and weapons entering the prison system. I don't see any way you could get around having to to search all those entering. But that's a different situation than being searched for a crime. If I understood this correctly, this is simply an administrative search, not a search in search of evidence. Or put another way, if you get arrested for a joint and during the search the cops find cocaine, I'm not sure that would mean much of anything. (except you lose your cocaine) But I'm probably completely off-base.

cheez 15y ago
Sure, let's see what happens when you get strip searched for mundane things like being too noisy.
- kijeda 15y ago
  Isn't the issue, then, that you shouldn't be put in jail for such offences, rather than making arguments concerning strip searching?
  - darklajid 15y ago
    How about - both.
  - cheez 15y ago
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" This applies especially and probably mostly to the police and government. Police indirectly get more money for more arrests. Therefore, arrest more people. You should be glad when you get a driving ticket. It's a proxy for an arrest or two that could have happened instead.

endianswap 15y ago

Idealistically this is something that I would support, because anyone who has been arrested and will be put into the general population of a jail carries several risks with them inside (the article mentions some of these: weapons, drugs, other contraband). But, that entire thought is predicated on a thought that I would argue is counter to reality: that people are only arrested when there is good cause to detain that individual. Basically, if the entirety of the law enforcement and judicial system worked, then I wouldn't have a problem with this, but if I have to fear being arrested for taking a photograph of a police officer, then I feel that the strip-searching would apply to those who shouldn't necessarily be in jail in the first place...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mikecane 15y ago

I wonder if in NYC all the people arrested from now on at Occupy Wall Street will be strip searched. I do not like this decision.

tomp 15y ago

The title is misleading; IANAL, but according to the article text, the Supreme Court approved that officials can search people before putting them into prison, only for offences that can put you into prison! I'm quite astonished that this wasn't the case already, i.e. they take your freedom, but they don't check what you're carrying with you?!?

mikecane 15y ago
It applies to general population of a jail too. Let's say you are arrested in NYC. You can be taken to a holding cell at a local precinct. Then you are shuttled to downtown, to a holding cell in the court building. You go from being one person in a precinct cell to going into the "general population" of other people waiting to see a judge. Before being put in that larger holding cell, you will be subjected to a strip search now thanks to the Supreme Court. And if your offense is something as minor as not cleaning up your dog's poop? Is that fair?
- tomp 15y ago
  I think the real question is why do you get jailed for not cleaning your dog's poop. That would never happen in Europe (I hope).
darklajid 15y ago
You can board these precious airplanes by asking for a pat down (although discouraged?). I'm clueless about the laws in the US. Can you go to jail for example if you pee in a park? Drive too fast? Are too drunk on the streets to find home? If any of these lead to a yes, do you think those people should be forced to strip in front of someone? Because they, obviously, are bad guys?
- 18pfsmt 15y ago
  To answer your questions: 1) Public urination is a ticket (got one in college, many years ago). 2) Speeding is a ticket unless you are going excessively fast (100mph in 30mph zone; these numbers vary among states). 3) Too drunk on the street will get you taken to the drunk tank to sober up/ sleep it off (not jail).

jerrya 15y ago

I was driving my car two weeks ago, when I was pulled over for failure to pay a ticket (the officer and their db was in error.) That night before heading out on the road, I shoved some rock cocaine in a balloon up my ass, so I was okay with going to jail because I could make some money. I was thrown into the hoosegow, (I'd asked for the clink) but not until I was strip searched. Last week, the cops came by for failure to pay child support (I had paid, in fact it's automatically deducted but my ex was playing games again.) As I saw the black and white pull up to the curb, I quickly shoved some spoons up my ass, damn, cops found those during the strip search. Last night, my dog and I were playing in the park when I saw some cops wander by, yep, I got nabbed for walking the dog off the leash. Luckily before going out with the dog I had shoved a cell phone up my ass, but damn, the cops found that too. Some potential examples cited by dissenting judges in the lower courts and by Justice Breyer on Monday included violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support.

sukuriant 15y ago
I don't really know where you're going with this..
- jerrya 15y ago
  It's a response to arguments that the government has a legitimate need to strip search everyone, regardless of what the charges are against them. The notion some guy pulled over for failure to pay a speeding ticket, or arrested for failure to pay child support, or arrested for having a dog off leash (really?) has paraphernalia shoved up his ass should seem terribly questionable. The argument the government has a need to strip search everyone, should give way to a realization that probably is not true. As I point out, these are not my wild examples, but examples specifically mentioned by Justice Breyer in dissent.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 15y ago

[In his concurrence] Chief Justice Roberts, quoting from an earlier decision, said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.’” It's a bit late for that. The facts of this case speak for themselves: Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” on indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed. Held: The judgment is affirmed. I have visited jails, as part of a film crew. they are grim places, and a lot of the people who inhabit them are, frankly, villains. I've also seen collections of confiscated weapons manufactured from scrap materials whose creativity and effectiveness would put most hackers to shame. I can see the pragmatic reasoning that led the court to err on the side of law enforcement officer safety, and indeed inmate safety. To my mind, the problem is that the nature of Florence's treatment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment for a minor administrative violation. But legally speaking it wasn't cruel because it had a practical rather than a punitive basis; and it wasn't unusual because everyone is subjected to the same degree of inspection at those facilities; and he hadn't been punished, because he hadn't been convicted; and it wasn't relevant because his counsel (correctly) focused on on other constitutional protections. And this is the problem: our constitutional rights are embedded in a procedural framework so inflexible that innocent persons can be mistakenly subjected to the most degrading treatment, and find themselves without a legal remedy because of the legal equivalent of incorrectly scoped variable (not been convicted, therefore he hasn't been punished). this ruling is civil rights disaster, and the problem will get worse before it gets better. Regular HNers will know that I'm usually on the side of precedent even in cases where I don't like the decision. I am still not sure what Mr Florence's attorney could or should have done differently, and it would hardly have been appropriate to argue that all detainess should be held in solitary confinement pending the disposition of their case, for example - some cases need time to resolve, and jails exist in the first place because society has an interest in detaining some kinds of possible criminals in advance of trial. I haven't read the full opinion or the briefs, nor have I read enough criminal procedure or constitutional law to come up with a good alternative; so I'm speaking from my gut instead of my head, which I don't like to do. But it seems to me that this exposes a weakness in our constitution's tendency to define procedures rather than interests. The reasoning is sound, but the outcome is unconscionable in a free society. I am deeply disappointed.

medusa666 15y ago

I'm confident that the vast majority of those who agree with this decision are white, and therefore believe (probably correctly) that it will never happen to them. But if you're a darker-hued, equally law-abiding citizen ...