The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Here's an article from 2008:

 

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

I'm trying to find a voting record on such a bill from 2009-2010. I found one from 2011 but I can't see if there was any votes those years, it won't find anyhting from them.

[Y2HH]

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

 

This is what I mean. When they "might" be able to pass it, the "blue dog" Democrats rise up and vote no...but when they have no chance at passing it, there are no "blue dogs" to be found. Just seems like part of the show, while us voters actually argue about it...they pretend to do so publicly, and laugh privately at 30,000$ per plate dinners...

Edited April 2, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

This is what I mean. When they "might" be able to pass it, the "blue dog" Democrats rise up and vote no...but when they have no chance at passing it, there are no "blue dogs" to be found. Just seems like part of the show, while us voters actually argue about it...they pretend to do so publicly, and laugh privately at 30,000$ per plate dinners...

 

If the Senate wasn't dysfunctional, bills that receive a majority of the votes would pass.

 

That conservatives who caucused (D) before blocked repealing these subsidies doesn't provide cover for those who block it now or our broken system.

[StrangeSox]

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

 

I just wanted to point out that the person at the center of this case was, in fact, a law abiding citizen who had done nothing wrong. Thanks to a computer glitch, he was flagged as not having paid a fine seven years previously and so a bench warrant was issued. He had paid the fine.

 

Police-State Logic

 

 

The Court embraced today a “police-state logic.” It is a logic that seeks to eliminate, to absolutely eradicate and purge any and all security risks, no matter how small they might be. It demands total suppression and erasure of risk. The police-state logic is about identifying, describing, cataloguing any and all possible security risks, no matter how trivial, and then effectively giving the state security apparatus free rein to adopt the most penetrating strategy to obliterate that risk. Justice Kennedy’s opinion reads precisely in this vein, and reflects this logic.

 

Now, of course, Kennedy is right that these security risks exist. There are (extremely rare) cases of arrestees carrying contraband (drugs) on or in their bodies. It occurs in extremely few cases, but it does happen. One recent study of 75,000 new inmates over a five years period found 16 instances where a full body search revealed contraband. (As Breyer explains, “The record further showed that 13 of these 16 pieces of contraband would have been detected in a patdown or a search of shoes and outer-clothing. In the three instances in which contra¬band was found on the detainee’s body or in a body cavity, there was a drug or felony history that would have justified a strip search on individualized reasonable suspicion,” Breyer’s dissent at page 8. Truth is, we do not know if there are any such cases where there was no prior reasonable suspicion that the person was carrying contraband, but let’s put that aside).

 

I’m fully prepared to assume, with Kennedy, that there will be such cases. But the question is, do we then embrace a “police-state logic” and give the jailors the license to strip search everyone? Do we close off constitutionalism because of the very existence of a security risk, no matter how small? Or do we engage in some kind of political balancing of those security risks against other political values?

Edited April 3, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I just wanted to point out that the person at the center of this case was, in fact, a law abiding citizen who had done nothing wrong. Thanks to a computer glitch, he was flagged as not having paid a fine seven years previously and so a bench warrant was issued. He had paid the fine.

 

Police-State Logic

 

He had a copy of the paid receipt in his glove compartment too I read. Not sure why he was even arrested in the first place.

 

 

[Balta1701]

He had a copy of the paid receipt in his glove compartment too I read. Not sure why he was even arrested in the first place.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that he's black.

[StrangeSox]

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

 

Not on the Constitutional claims since the SC has ruled they're not valid, right?

[Y2HH]

He had a copy of the paid receipt in his glove compartment too I read. Not sure why he was even arrested in the first place.

 

It was the fault of the state, etc...who knows. But on the computer it read he had an outstanding warrant. No cop in existence is going to say oh look, an obscure receipt, I guess I'll just ignore this warrant because it shouldn't exist. He can't assume to know that. The person in question should be pissed off at the state that never removed his warrant, not the cop that didn't believe some receipt...I mean, that's just ridiculous.

[StrangeSox]

It was the fault of the state, etc...who knows. But on the computer it read he had an outstanding warrant. No cop in existence is going to say oh look, an obscure receipt, I guess I'll just ignore this warrant because it shouldn't exist. He can't assume to know that. The person in question should be pissed off at the state that never removed his warrant, not the cop that didn't believe some receipt...I mean, that's just ridiculous.

 

But this guy who was arrested for an unpaid fine (incorrectly or not) can be strip-searched and it's not an unreasonable search. That's pretty terrible.

[NorthSideSox72]

It was the fault of the state, etc...who knows. But on the computer it read he had an outstanding warrant. No cop in existence is going to say oh look, an obscure receipt, I guess I'll just ignore this warrant because it shouldn't exist. He can't assume to know that. The person in question should be pissed off at the state that never removed his warrant, not the cop that didn't believe some receipt...I mean, that's just ridiculous.

Have to agree here, no matter how unfortunate the situation was. Cops cannot pick and choose warrants to service in this way, they just can't do that. You would see a lot more abuse and bias and problems if they did.

 

This guy should be suing the state for the cause of the whole thing - the paperwork glitch.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

But this guy who was arrested for an unpaid fine (incorrectly or not) can be strip-searched and it's not an unreasonable search. That's pretty terrible.

It does disturb me a bit, but more from a police procedure point of view. The prison search is done to EVERYONE, and I get that. but the police strip search, just to hold him, seems out of line to me. In that situation, the cops can and should use some judgment. They clearly are not strip searching everyone they arrest, that just doesn't happen. So it seems odd they chose this guy.

 

[Y2HH]

But this guy who was arrested for an unpaid fine (incorrectly or not) can be strip-searched and it's not an unreasonable search. That's pretty terrible.

 

It is what it is, unfortunately. Police cannot assume anything when a person is going into a lockup. I've never really seen nor heard of police (or a jail) taking it this far, however...but they can for various reasons, that while unsavory to you, exist for a reason.

[Y2HH]

It does disturb me a bit, but more from a police procedure point of view. The prison search is done to EVERYONE, and I get that. but the police strip search, just to hold him, seems out of line to me. In that situation, the cops can and should use some judgment. They clearly are not strip searching everyone they arrest, that just doesn't happen. So it seems odd they chose this guy.

 

Right, and from reading a single story on the situation, it seems way out of line to me...but we weren't actually there. I know police don't like strip searching people, and when they do it they usually have a pretty good reason for it. So, I have to wonder if anything was said/done to prompt it...which of course, we will never know.

[NorthSideSox72]

Right, and from reading a single story on the situation, it seems way out of line to me...but we weren't actually there. I know police don't like strip searching people, and when they do it they usually have a pretty good reason for it. So, I have to wonder if anything was said/done to prompt it...which of course, we will never know.

Definitely possible. Though, with a case that went this far, if there were other important factors that might cause such a search, you'd think we'd know about it.

 

[StrangeSox]

The court's opinion states that this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails regardless of offense.

 

Yes, there's a security issue, but that needs to be balanced against other concerns. If there's a good reason to search a particular person based on the nature of the arrest and/or previous history, by all means. But this ruling makes it ok for the police to strip search anyone. This measure goes way, way too far in my opinion.

 

It's not that everyone arrested will be strip searched, it's that they can be for no reason at all and they have no recourse.

Edited April 3, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

The court's opinion states that this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails regardless of offense.

 

Yes, there's a security issue, but that needs to be balanced against other concerns. If there's a good reason to search a particular person based on the nature of the arrest and/or previous history, by all means. But this ruling makes it ok for the police to strip search anyone. This measure goes way, way too far in my opinion.

 

It's not that everyone arrested will be strip searched, it's that they can be for no reason at all and they have no recourse.

If there's no legal reason not to do so, then there's little to no reason not to strip search everyone. If you have a 0.0001% chance of actually preventing a serious problem if you do a strip search, and 0 chance of anything bad happening if you do so, and no additional costs incurred during the process, then the logic says to make it standard procedure.

[NorthSideSox72]

The court's opinion states that this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails regardless of offense.

 

Yes, there's a security issue, but that needs to be balanced against other concerns. If there's a good reason to search a particular person based on the nature of the arrest and/or previous history, by all means. But this ruling makes it ok for the police to strip search anyone. This measure goes way, way too far in my opinion.

 

It's not that everyone arrested will be strip searched, it's that they can be for no reason at all and they have no recourse.

First, it doesn't say that "this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails", unless I misread it (I did not read every opinion on the case, I only read articles quoting it). Because that would be factually false. I am sure the police department does not strip search everyone they detain. well, pretty sure anyway.

 

Second, your last line basically is saying, they are leaving it to police policy. And I am OK with that.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

If there's no legal reason not to do so, then there's little to no reason not to strip search everyone. If you have a 0.0001% chance of actually preventing a serious problem if you do a strip search, and 0 chance of anything bad happening if you do so, and no additional costs incurred during the process, then the logic says to make it standard procedure.

Ridiculous. You think that police departments are going to WANT to strip and cavity search everyone they detain? You cannot really think that would be the case, it makes no sense at all. Aside from the fact that no one wants to do that anyway, the reality is also that it is time-consuming, and opens you up to litigation (and yes, even with this case in place, litigation can still occur). Your paranoia here has clouded any sense of logic.

 

[StrangeSox]

First, it doesn't say that "this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails", unless I misread it (I did not read every opinion on the case, I only read articles quoting it). Because that would be factually false. I am sure the police department does not strip search everyone they detain. well, pretty sure anyway.

 

this is the opening paragraph of the opinion:

 

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.

 

Second, your last line basically is saying, they are leaving it to police policy. And I am OK with that.

 

I'm not OK with this being an acceptable policy for police. It's a huge invasion of privacy.

[StrangeSox]

Ridiculous. You think that police departments are going to WANT to strip and cavity search everyone they detain? You cannot really think that would be the case, it makes no sense at all. Aside from the fact that no one wants to do that anyway, the reality is also that it is time-consuming, and opens you up to litigation (and yes, even with this case in place, litigation can still occur). Your paranoia here has clouded any sense of logic.

 

Litigation for what? Not 4th and 14th amendment violations.

 

It's not that every police department will do this, it's that they can. I believe you should have a Constitutionally protected right to privacy from being strip searched after being detained for any offense, no matter how minor.

[Y2HH]

this is the opening paragraph of the opinion:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not OK with this being an acceptable policy for police. It's a huge invasion of privacy.

 

Ehh, you're walking a grey area here.

 

That article is about being initiated into a public jail with shared cells...probably community sized. They do this because they HAVE too at jails like this, for the reasons I've previously stated. If they sneak a weapon into there and kill someone, the officer that sent them in is at fault.

 

Now, for regular holding cells...no, they don't do it to everyone...can they? Yes...for obvious reasons, they MUST reserve the right to do it, otherwise they can be putting themselves and others into a dangerous situation. Is it something that can be abused...sure. But so is EVERY power you grant a police officer. There is always room for abuse in that job...they get to walk around with guns you realize. There is potential for abuse in just about everything a cop can do...but for a very good reason.

[NorthSideSox72]

this is the opening paragraph of the opinion:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not OK with this being an acceptable policy for police. It's a huge invasion of privacy.

Read it more carefully. It referred to the COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, then the county jail proper. Neither of those are police lockups. They are prisons. These searches occurred after he was handed over the county jail systems.

 

Which now helps aid a part of the picture that was made unclear in the articles and exerpts I read - which made it seem that the police strip-searched him. They did not.

 

I am now OK with this court finding, and the story makes more sense to me as a whole. The guy was searched twice because he was in jail twice.

 

[Y2HH]

Litigation for what? Not 4th and 14th amendment violations.

 

It's not that every police department will do this, it's that they can. I believe you should have a Constitutionally protected right to privacy from being strip searched after being detained for any offense, no matter how minor.

 

No, you shouldn't, for the reasons I stated...and you ignored.

[NorthSideSox72]

Litigation for what? Not 4th and 14th amendment violations.

 

It's not that every police department will do this, it's that they can. I believe you should have a Constitutionally protected right to privacy from being strip searched after being detained for any offense, no matter how minor.

This is now more clear to me - this was not a police department doing the searching. It was a county sherriff's facility - a jail. Therefore, no, the court finding does NOT allow for police to strip search just anyone. In fact, it doesn't really establish precedent for that scenario it all, it avoids it.

 

[StrangeSox]

This is now more clear to me - this was not a police department doing the searching. It was a county sherriff's facility - a jail. Therefore, no, the court finding does NOT allow for police to strip search just anyone. In fact, it doesn't really establish precedent for that scenario it all, it avoids it.

 

Perhaps I'm being sloppy with "police" vs. "jailer," but the point remains that anyone can be strip searched without reason after being detained for a minor offense such as an unpaid traffic ticket.

 

I'm finding it hard to believe you guys actually think that's a good thing.