The Democrat Thread

[Y2HH]

I'm sorry, but 1) my cousin is a police officer and they let people walk for things all the time, certainly without losing their jobs, and the reason they do it is for liability purposes; and 2) having a warrant out for your arrest is not like having an outstanding parking ticket. People are usually pretty aware of why they have them and what they are for.

 

Now notice I didn't have any qualms with the man being arrested. But I've been arrested and jailed before and they certainly didn't strip search me. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are places you can safely hold people without subjecting them to incredibly humiliating strip searches.

 

Are you honestly going to claim that EVERY person that gets arrested needs to go through the strip search process?

 

And enough with the "Really. I mean, really" incredulous nonsense already.

 

I'm sorry but 1) No, they don't let people with active warrants out for their arrest walk. Letting people walk on minor offenses and letting someone walk with an active warrant out for their arrest are NOT the same. You're basically saying your cousin lets people with warrants out for their arrest walk all the time?

 

He's a liar...or you're a liar.

 

So take it back now.

 

And for the bold part: I never said that. Every person that gets arrested and put in a community holding facility, yes, for obvious reasons. But every person that gets arrested? No. Again, it depends on the facility you are being put into. They all have their own rules for very good reasons.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba...uthcheckdam.pdf

The suspicionless strip-search policies respondents advocate are out-of-line with leading correctional stan-dards. The American Correctional Association (ACA) is the oldest and largest international association dedicated to the administration of correctional facili-ties, and its accreditations and certifications are considered the benchmark for effective jail admin-istration. The ACA rejects suspicionless strip-search policies like the ones at issue here.

Relevant here, ACA Standard 4-ALDF-2C-03 pro-vides that “[a] strip search of an arrestee at intake shall only be conducted when there is reasonable belief or suspicion that he/she may be in possession of an item of contraband” (emphasis added). The ACA Performance-Based Standards accordingly reject the practice of blanket, suspicionless strip searches of individuals arrested for minor offenses. The ACA standards, including the strip-search standard, were developed with support from the American Jail Association, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and numerous state and local departments of corrections.

[StrangeSox]

If the warrant didn't exist, he wouldn't have been arrested, nor strip searched. You assume he still would have been...people don't get arrested and strip searched for minor offenses. Having a warrant out for your arrest...is NOT minor, just FYI.

 

I do not assume that, but focusing on whether or not the warrant was valid is completely irrelevant to what this ruling was about. Yes, you are correct in saying that, had there not been an error, he would not have been detained. However, the constitutional claims in this suit are not dependent on the legality of the arrest and detention and would apply equally to someone arrested for actually not paying a fine. The error that lead to the warrant is simply not relevant to whether a policy of strip searching every detainee is constitutional.

 

The reason for the warrant was minor--an unpaid fine. He was arrested for a minor offense and, due to the policies at the jails, was strip searched. "Minor offense" is being used in a specific way in this case repeatedly in the court documents. You cannot just redefine any arrest warrant as not a minor offense.

[StrangeSox]

And for the bold part: I never said that. Every person that gets arrested and put in a community holding facility, yes, for obvious reasons. But every person that gets arrested? No. Again, it depends on the facility you are being put into. They all have their own rules for very good reasons.

 

Why does the main correctional association and every federal agency as well as numerous state and local agencies disagree that mandatory strip searches are necessary?

[Y2HH]

I do not assume that, but focusing on whether or not the warrant was valid is completely irrelevant to what this ruling was about. Yes, you are correct in saying that, had there not been an error, he would not have been detained. However, the constitutional claims in this suit are not dependent on the legality of the arrest and detention and would apply equally to someone arrested for actually not paying a fine. The error that lead to the warrant is simply not relevant to whether a policy of strip searching every detainee is constitutional.

 

The reason for the warrant was minor--an unpaid fine. He was arrested for a minor offense and, due to the policies at the jails, was strip searched. "Minor offense" is being used in a specific way in this case repeatedly in the court documents. You cannot just redefine any arrest warrant as not a minor offense.

 

The offense underlying the warrant may be minor, but the warrant itself is not "minor", or they wouldn't issue it.

[StrangeSox]

The offense underlying the warrant may be minor, but the warrant itself is not "minor", or they wouldn't issue it.

 

Then you've just defined every warrant as a major offense. That's ridiculous on its face, and it is not at all how the language is used throughout the briefs and rulings.

[Y2HH]

Why does the main correctional association and every federal agency as well as numerous state and local agencies disagree that mandatory strip searches are necessary?

 

For one, and from what I know, though I could be wrong...you're never arrested and processed into a federal prison. You only go there after convicted. You're put in a local holding cell or a state temporary hold, such as Cook County Jail. There, you'd await trail, and then be moved into a bigger state prison or federal penitentiary.

[Y2HH]

Then you've just defined every warrant as a major offense. That's ridiculous on its face, and it is not at all how the language is used throughout the briefs and rulings.

 

No, I didn't.

 

You're simply not understanding how the system works.

 

The reason for the warrant may be minor, but the issuance of the warrant is NOT. I don't know how else to explain this to a person that doesn't want to understand...

 

I know you're smart enough to understand, but you're not understanding on purpose because you disagree with it.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba...uthcheckdam.pdf

from the same brief:

 

The successful operation of facilities using a reasonable-suspicion standard and other less intru-sive search methods rebuts hypothetical security concerns unsupported by evidence. The elimination of suspicionless strip-search policies has not resulted in increases in disease, gang activity, or contraband. To be sure, at one time many jail administrators assumed that suspicionless strip searches were necessary. A report by the Department of Justice and the National Institute of Corrections (authored by amicus curiae William Collins), for example, noted that before the adoption of a reasonable-suspicion standard for strip searches in jails around the country, many correctional officials “passionately believed that not being able to strip search all arrestees entering the jail would result in major security problems because of dramatic increases in contraband entering the jail.” William C. Collins, Nat’l Inst. of Corr., Jails and the Constitution: An Overview 28 (2d ed. 2007). After assessing the shift to suspicion-based polices, however, the report con-cluded that “these problems did not develop. The legal rulings did not cause the catastrophe many predicted.” Id. at 29.

This also is borne out by the experience of jail administrators. In an article published in the Correc-tional Law Reporter, a former jail administrator described many jail administrators’ unfounded assump-tion that suspicionless strip searches will reduce contraband. Based on his experience and discussions with other administrators, however, he found that “[w]e really have not seen an increase in the

12

entry of contraband in those facilities that use a constitutionally valid strip search policy. I defy any jail administrator to ‘show me the money’ (actually the data) that their policy led to an increase in contraband entering through the initial booking process.” Don Leach, Arrestee Strip Searches: An Administrator’s View, Corr. L. Reporter, June-July 2010, at 13.

This view is consistent with the experiences of amici. For example, David Parrish, former admin-istrator of the Hillsborough County Jail, a 4,000-bed facility in Florida, long believed in routine, suspicion-less strip searches for all arrestees admitted to his facility. After implementing a reasonable-suspicion standard, however, Mr. Parrish—who reviewed each day’s incident reports in the jail he administered for twenty-seven years—witnessed no increase in the amount of contraband smuggled into the jail. Other amici have had similar experiences.

[iamshack]

The offense underlying the warrant may be minor, but the warrant itself is not "minor", or they wouldn't issue it.

If it was for falling behind in his payments for the fine he agreed to in his plea, than I would certainly label that as minor.

 

I don't really have an issue with the ruling here...what shocks me more is that someone could be subjected to this, among other things, being imprisoned for 6 days, over a clerical error.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

For one, and from what I know, though I could be wrong...you're never arrested and processed into a federal prison. You only go there after convicted. You're put in a local holding cell or a state temporary hold, such as Cook County Jail. There, you'd await trail, and then be moved into a bigger state prison or federal penitentiary.

 

There are numerous federal agencies such as ICE and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that follow this policy. The ACA does not recommend mandatory searches at any level, and the federal policies were developed based on this recommendation.

[Y2HH]

There are numerous federal agencies such as ICE and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that follow this policy. The ACA does not recommend mandatory searches at any level, and the federal policies were developed based on this recommendation.

 

You mean the same federal agency that falls under the awesome and extended Patriot Act laws? Seems to me that if they feel like ignoring those "rules", they can...and do.

[StrangeSox]

No, I didn't.

 

You're simply not understanding how the system works.

 

The reason for the warrant may be minor, but the issuance of the warrant is NOT. I don't know how else to explain this to a person that doesn't want to understand...

 

I know you're smart enough to understand, but you're not understanding on purpose because you disagree with it.

 

What am I not understanding? That you want to define the issuance of a warrant as a non-minor event and completely decouple the seriousness of the actual offense? Ok, what difference does that make? You're still being arrested and detained and perhaps charged with a minor offense.

[StrangeSox]

You mean the same federal agency that falls under the awesome and extended Patriot Act laws? Seems to me that if they feel like ignoring those "rules", they can...and do.

 

I have no idea what point this is addressing. Mandatory strip searches are not seen as a necessary policy by many people in the field of corrections.

[Y2HH]

What am I not understanding? That you want to define the issuance of a warrant as a non-minor event and completely decouple the seriousness of the actual offense? Ok, what difference does that make? You're still being arrested and detained and perhaps charged with a minor offense.

 

There is simply no way I can explain it to you, then.

 

If a warrant is issued for your arrest, regardless of how minor the underlying reason was, it's not minor...you're getting arrested because a judge REQUESTED you be arrested. The issuance of the judges order to arrest said person is NOT minor, even if the reason for it is.

 

I honestly don't know how else I can explain this to you.

[Y2HH]

I have no idea what point this is addressing. Mandatory strip searches are not seen as a necessary policy by many people in the field of corrections.

 

But this prison, in specific, finds it necessary. Why? I do not know...but they do. What would you like me to do about it?! It's their rules, not mine...not the federal governments.

[StrangeSox]

There is simply no way I can explain it to you, then.

 

If a warrant is issued for your arrest, regardless of how minor the underlying reason was, it's not minor...you're getting arrested because a judge REQUESTED you be arrested. The issuance of the judges order to arrest said person is NOT minor, even if the reason for it is.

 

I honestly don't know how else I can explain this to you.

 

I understand that you are saying the issuance of a warrant is a serious event.

 

I guess what I'm failing to understand is why this would matter.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

But this prison, in specific, finds it necessary. Why? I do not know...but they do. What would you like me to do about it?! It's their rules, not mine...not the federal governments.

 

I'd have liked for it to be unconstitutional. Barring that, I'd like for states to pass laws against such policies.

[Y2HH]

I understand that you are saying the issuance of a warrant is a serious event.

 

I guess what I'm failing to understand is why this would matter.

 

I couldn't tell you this. But it matters. It's like when a superior asks me to do something that really doesn't need to be done...but they want it done anyway...only to a different degree, since they're working for the government. They're working under a lot of rules you and I are do not...and I do not know all of these rules, or the reasons for these rules.

[illinilaw08]

I couldn't tell you this. But it matters. It's like when a superior asks me to do something that really doesn't need to be done...but they want it done anyway...only to a different degree, since they're working for the government. They're working under a lot of rules you and I are do not...and I do not know all of these rules, or the reasons for these rules.

 

Weighing in here with my experiences...

 

Once upon a time, I was a state prosecutor in Arizona. I requested dozens of bench warrants. I also worked with a wide array of officers. Most of them were great, some were not (see the officer that stood up under cross examination and accused the defense attorney of committing perjury - that was awesome). Both those topics have been discussed in this thread, but I don't think they are particularly relevant to this holding.

 

The issue before the SCOTUS seems to be whether it is reasonable policy to require everyone entering a jail facility to be strip searched (and note, there is a difference between jail and prison if we are discussing semantcs). The issue is not whether officers should follow policy (they should). Nor is it whether some people will try to bring in contraband in cavities (they will - though Breyer is probably right that that generally occurs infrequently).

 

Cavity searches are extremely invasive. I tend to think that such an invasive procedure should be reserved for situations where there is a reasonable suspicion of contraband (known gang member, metal detector picks something up and you can't find it, I would even concede that a jail with a massive contraband problem might have reasonable suspicion to strip search everyone), rather than as a policy for everyone. I would wager that in most jails, the vast majority of those arrested aren't smuggling contraband. I haven't read the opinion, so I'm not sure how far reaching this holding actually might be, but when there are 5-4 opinions on criminal procedures, I tend to come down on the side of the liberal judges...

 

 

 

[Y2HH]

Weighing in here with my experiences...

 

Once upon a time, I was a state prosecutor in Arizona. I requested dozens of bench warrants. I also worked with a wide array of officers. Most of them were great, some were not (see the officer that stood up under cross examination and accused the defense attorney of committing perjury - that was awesome). Both those topics have been discussed in this thread, but I don't think they are particularly relevant to this holding.

 

The issue before the SCOTUS seems to be whether it is reasonable policy to require everyone entering a jail facility to be strip searched (and note, there is a difference between jail and prison if we are discussing semantcs). The issue is not whether officers should follow policy (they should). Nor is it whether some people will try to bring in contraband in cavities (they will - though Breyer is probably right that that generally occurs infrequently).

 

Cavity searches are extremely invasive. I tend to think that such an invasive procedure should be reserved for situations where there is a reasonable suspicion of contraband (known gang member, metal detector picks something up and you can't find it, I would even concede that a jail with a massive contraband problem might have reasonable suspicion to strip search everyone), rather than as a policy for everyone. I would wager that in most jails, the vast majority of those arrested aren't smuggling contraband. I haven't read the opinion, so I'm not sure how far reaching this holding actually might be, but when there are 5-4 opinions on criminal procedures, I tend to come down on the side of the liberal judges...

 

Well you are obviously more qualified than any of us...elaborate more.

[iamshack]

Weighing in here with my experiences...

 

Once upon a time, I was a state prosecutor in Arizona. I requested dozens of bench warrants. I also worked with a wide array of officers. Most of them were great, some were not (see the officer that stood up under cross examination and accused the defense attorney of committing perjury - that was awesome). Both those topics have been discussed in this thread, but I don't think they are particularly relevant to this holding.

 

The issue before the SCOTUS seems to be whether it is reasonable policy to require everyone entering a jail facility to be strip searched (and note, there is a difference between jail and prison if we are discussing semantcs). The issue is not whether officers should follow policy (they should). Nor is it whether some people will try to bring in contraband in cavities (they will - though Breyer is probably right that that generally occurs infrequently).

 

Cavity searches are extremely invasive. I tend to think that such an invasive procedure should be reserved for situations where there is a reasonable suspicion of contraband (known gang member, metal detector picks something up and you can't find it, I would even concede that a jail with a massive contraband problem might have reasonable suspicion to strip search everyone), rather than as a policy for everyone. I would wager that in most jails, the vast majority of those arrested aren't smuggling contraband. I haven't read the opinion, so I'm not sure how far reaching this holding actually might be, but when there are 5-4 opinions on criminal procedures, I tend to come down on the side of the liberal judges...

The majority is basically coming down on the side of the interests of running a safe prison over the right to be free from such an invasive procedure.

 

I can understand both points of view, however, it seems as though there are less invasive procedures that will eliminate the possibility of contraband entering the prison population in all but the most infrequent of cases. Are those infrequent cases enough to justify such an invasive procedure to everyone that gets entered into the general prison population?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I couldn't tell you this. But it matters. It's like when a superior asks me to do something that really doesn't need to be done...but they want it done anyway...only to a different degree, since they're working for the government. They're working under a lot of rules you and I are do not...and I do not know all of these rules, or the reasons for these rules.

 

I think maybe we were talking past each other. The issuance of a warrant is a serious matter regardless of the underlying reason for that warrant--I agree.

 

That isn't what people (including the lawyers writing briefs for the SC and SC Justices themselves) are talking about when they say "minor offense." They're delineating between more serious crimes like robbery or assault and misdemeanors such as failing to pay a fine. Why the warrant was issued is something that can factor into the judgement of the in-processing officers at a jail if they are given latitude on who to search.

[Soxbadger]

Illinilaw,

 

Cavity searches are extremely invasive. I tend to think that such an invasive procedure should be reserved for situations where there is a reasonable suspicion of contraband (known gang member, metal detector picks something up and you can't find it, I would even concede that a jail with a massive contraband problem might have reasonable suspicion to strip search everyone), rather than as a policy for everyone.

 

Not sure if you are aware, but in this case it was only a "visual" search. No touching at all.

 

If it involved touching, I would be against the ruling. Visual is much grayer area.

[StrangeSox]

Elsewhere it was highlighted that Kennedy made this odd reference in the opinion:

 

One of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.

 

Can anyone explain why this helps bolster the case?