The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Any person arrested for any reason can be strip-searched.

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs but also public health and information about gang affiliations.

 

But universal health care is destroying the last shred of freedom.

[Y2HH]

Any person arrested for any reason can be strip-searched.

 

 

 

But universal health care is destroying the last shred of freedom.

 

Right-o, because "getting arrested" is something that happens to us law abiding citizens every day.

 

Note the court ruled that you first have to be arrested for something, THEN they can strip search you...which is kind of a NO s*** reason. Police search and/or strip search people they're arresting for a reason, they may have a dangerous weapon, etc, hidden that they can and have used against police after being placed in their squad cars.

 

And then of course let's use this to turn it into a discussion about health care destroying our freedom.

 

I know this is anecdotal, but I'm sure many of you have shared this same experience, IF you ever shared it at all. I've been arrested one time in my life...and get this...I was doing something wrong when it happened. I KNOW, RIGHT?! THOSE SON OF A b**** POLICE SEARCHED ME AND GRABBED ME IN VERY PRIVATE AREAS TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T ARMED, TOO! DAMN THEM FOR ROBBING ME OF MY FREEEEEDOMMMMMM! WHERE WAS MEL GIBSON WHEN I NEEDED HIM?!

[StrangeSox]

Getting arrested happens to law-abiding citizens every day, yes.

 

But it's cool you're on board with strip-searches for any offense, no matter how minor.

[Y2HH]

Getting arrested happens to law-abiding citizens every day, yes.

 

But it's cool you're on board with strip-searches for any offense, no matter how minor.

 

If you get arrested, the police have the right, and you should expect them to have the right. Being placed under arrest probably means there was a reason. No, people don't get arrested for no reason all the time. Does it happen? Yes. But not often as you'd like. Take your anti police rhetoric and stick it. I have some news for you, police do NOT go looking for innocent people to arrest all the time. As I said, it can happen...but it's not something they actively seek to do. And with that, they have to assume the arrest they're making is legit, and the search to go with it...it's not like they're arresting an innocent person and saying, "you know what...since I know this guy is totally innocent and I'm arresting him for no reason, he's probably not armed or on drugs...so let's not search him at all!" Nothing like that enters a cops mind, I assure you...and if it does...they're not long for the job.

 

Police don't judge people by how they look...they can't afford to do that (and you'll read why in my next post)...but I'm sure you have some sort of fairy tale comeback to the logic and reasons I lay out anyway.

 

And note that just because they CAN strip search someone, does not mean they will...my brother has hundreds upon hundreds of arrests and zero strip searches to speak of...despite having the right to perform them on every arrest.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Oh, and so you are aware -- because I can tell you aren't aware...

 

IF the police make an arrest, and the person they arrested somehow gets drugs or a weapon into the holding cell/jail, and something goes down, such as an overdose, or a person ends up getting badly injured (or multiple people), or someone winds up dead...that cop, as Hawk would say...he/she suspended and/or gawn! And most likely their partner, too.

 

Throw their pension and livelihood down the toilet...

 

The court is dead on...they are nobody to second guess the officer making the arrest...because more goes into it than you think, know, or really...want to know.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

I think they limited it to situations where they're put into the general population too. So if you're picked up for a misdemeanor and booked and put into a holding cell you can't be searched. So I think in practice it's going to require more than just a simple offense to get to that point.

[Y2HH]

I think they limited it to situations where they're put into the general population too. So if you're picked up for a misdemeanor and booked and put into a holding cell you can't be searched. So I think in practice it's going to require more than just a simple offense to get to that point.

 

Even for a simple arrest they have to search you for the reason(s) I laid out in my previous post...that said, they won't strip search 99.99999% of their arrests unless they have a very specific reason to do so.

[StrangeSox]

Even for a simple arrest they have to search you for the reason(s) I laid out in my previous post...that said, they won't strip search 99.99999% of their arrests unless they have a very specific reason to do so.

 

But they can strip search you for any offense and for no reason at all. I find that appalling.

[StrangeSox]

And note that just because they CAN strip search someone, does not mean they will...my brother has hundreds upon hundreds of arrests and zero strip searches to speak of...despite having the right to perform them on every arrest.

 

You don't see a very serious potential for abuse here?

[Y2HH]

You don't see a very serious potential for abuse here?

 

First, you have to understand the precautions they have to take and the laws and procedures that they [the police] have to follow in order to strip search someone. It's not something they can just "do", as you're seeming to take it. They have to take their own safety into account, AND the person they're arresting. When an officer places you under arrest, you are now in their custody...and now your well being is on them. If they put you in danger, especially in this age of video and surveillance, they are held responsible. Police cars in Chicago actually record video of their front windshield view, and audio surrounding the car at all times.

 

Believe it or not, there are a LOT of rules and regulations Police have to follow, and most are very careful to follow as their livelihoods rely on it. Are there some cowboys out there? Sure, and they're also a dying breed that are more rare than people think...they're slowly weeding themselves out.

 

I know this because my brother is a cop, and almost everyone I'm around are cops on a daily basis...and with the garbage they deal with every single day...the last thing they look to do is arrest regular innocent people (that they actually like), and strip search them because it's awesome to do!

 

Police are given specific rights and privileges you and I are not afforded for a specific set of reasons. And yes, with that power, there is ALWAYS potential for abuse. But most don't abuse it for the very reasons I laid out.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

I likely dont agree with it (Id actually have to read the ruling and know what the ruling was to comment, and I dont really feel like doing that.)

 

And Ive been "arrested" at least 5+ times, only 2 of them had any legitimacy, none of them resulted in a conviction. Ive never been strip searched.

 

That being said, the cynic in me believes that strip searches of hot females will increase exponentially.

 

[Y2HH]

I likely dont agree with it (Id actually have to read the ruling and know what the ruling was to comment, and I dont really feel like doing that.)

 

And Ive been "arrested" at least 5+ times, only 2 of them had any legitimacy, none of them resulted in a conviction. Ive never been strip searched.

 

That being said, the cynic in me believes that strip searches of hot females will increase exponentially.

 

NOT a chance.

 

First, male officers don't strip search females, they have to call a female officer in to do that.

 

Second, even if they COULD, they wouldn't in fear of a complaint being registered against them for sexual harassment, in which they'd lose their jobs.

 

BTW, at any time, for any reason (including no reason or a totally made up reason), you can lodge a complaint against any officer, and they WILL be investigated for it. All you need is a badge number, a name, OR their police car number.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Female officers can enjoy a fine lady.

 

Like I said, it would really depend on the ruling. Id at minimum want there to be some sort of "probable cause" that the person needs to be searched.

 

Now that is going to be a pretty low threshold, but I still believe there must be something.

[Y2HH]

Female officers can enjoy a fine lady.

 

Like I said, it would really depend on the ruling. Id at minimum want there to be some sort of "probable cause" that the person needs to be searched.

 

Now that is going to be a pretty low threshold, but I still believe there must be something.

 

I don't know what the rules are, I suppose I could ask my brother what he'd need to do if he wanted to strip search someone...

[Soxbadger]

I dont know what the rules are either, which is why I said I dont know if I disagree or not (I said I likely disagree, but that is because of the 5-4 rulings with regard to criminal rights, I generally am on the side of the 4).

 

For all I know this changes nothing.

[StrangeSox]

Here's the ruling:

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

 

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 appearat 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 thefine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incomingdetainee, 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 anofficer 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 lifthis 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 ofweapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” nonindictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

 

I don't like that anyone processed into the jail is strip-searched without reasonable suspicion.

[Y2HH]

Here's the ruling:

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

 

 

 

I don't like that anyone processed into the jail is strip-searched without reasonable suspicion.

 

This isn't very common...there must be something specific to that jail.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah that ruling isnt really that bad.

 

1) It does not involve touching:

 

In the instant case, the term does not include any touching of unclothed areas by the inspecting officer. There are no allegations that the detainees here were touched in any way as part of the searches

 

2) It was an appeal from summary judgment, the person could still win at trial.

[StrangeSox]

The Senate failed to repeal oil subsidies 51-47.

 

I love our broken Senate.

 

 

 

 

[Y2HH]

The Senate failed to repeal oil subsidies 51-47.

 

I love our broken Senate.

 

Wouldn't solve anything anyway. If the republicans were smart, they'd have passed that...because then the cost will just get passed onto the consumer at the pump/elsewhere and they can tell people, we said this exact thing would happen, but in the interest of doing what our boss told us to do, he caused prices to rise even more. Then again, with the short attention spans people have, it probably wouldn't matter...and all that would have ended up happening is they lose some very rich "friends" in the process of going with it.

[StrangeSox]

I don't care what it was meant to solve other than to stop giving companies making record profits tax subsidies.

 

But the point was that the bill failed 51 YES - 47 NO.

[Y2HH]

I don't care what it was meant to solve other than to stop giving companies making record profits tax subsidies.

 

But the point was that the bill failed 51 YES - 47 NO.

 

In all honesty, it makes me wonder why they waited to do these things...it's not like repealing these subsidies is a new idea...so why didn't they do it when they had huge majorities in both houses of Congress? Why'd they wait? I know this is the conspiracy theorist in me talking, but this is the exact type of behavior that makes me believe they don't actually want to pass these bills, but they want to put on a show to make us think they do.

[StrangeSox]

In all honesty, it makes me wonder why they waited to do these things...it's not like repealing these subsidies is a new idea...so why didn't they do it when they had huge majorities in both houses of Congress? Why'd they wait? I know this is the conspiracy theorist in me talking, but this is the exact type of behavior that makes me believe they don't actually want to pass these bills, but they want to put on a show to make us think they do.

 

Because it still took 60 votes and there was a decent number of blue-dog conservative Democrats.

[Balta1701]

Because it still took 60 votes and there was a decent number of blue-dog conservative Democrats.

God Damn I hate this new Google algorithm, it's just impossible to find historic documents on any subject, it completely defaults to the news feed.

[StrangeSox]

Here's an article from 2008:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8022702635.html