The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

For the minor offense of an unpaid fine, which it turns out was actually paid. So, despite the fact that he was actually wrongly arrested and that the jailers had no reason to suspect he presented any danger, you're still ok with him being strip searched?

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Breyer covers this in his dissent--it's an exceedingly rare scenario that anyone you wouldn't have reasonable suspicion of in the first place tried to sneak a weapon in and that it wouldn't have been caught by a pat-down.

 

How far does this logic take us? Is no security risk anywhere acceptable? Strip searches at airports?

[NorthSideSox72]

For the minor offense of an unpaid fine, which it turns out was actually paid. So, despite the fact that he was actually wrongly arrested and that the jailers had no reason to suspect he presented any danger, you're still ok with him being strip searched?

Yes I am. What I am not OK with is that the state f***ed up by not showing he paid the fines. That is who he should be suing - the people who caused the mess. The rule for searching, if the jail feels it is necessary for security of themselves and inmates, I am OK with.

 

And there is a major difference between police and jailers, in terms of legal parameters.

 

[Y2HH]

Breyer covers this in his dissent--it's an exceedingly rare scenario that anyone you wouldn't have reasonable suspicion of in the first place tried to sneak a weapon in and that it wouldn't have been caught by a pat-down.

 

How far does this logic take us? Is no security risk anywhere acceptable? Strip searches at airports?

 

The logic leap you just made went from government granted POLICE powers to low paid TSA agents without training? Really?

 

It doesn't go that far...it's police powers versus not.

[StrangeSox]

Yes I am. What I am not OK with is that the state f***ed up by not showing he paid the fines. That is who he should be suing - the people who caused the mess. The rule for searching, if the jail feels it is necessary for security of themselves and inmates, I am OK with.

 

I find this embrace of a police state pretty off-putting. These are not people convicted of a crime and heading to prison.

 

And there is a major difference between police and jailers, in terms of legal parameters.

 

Fair enough.

[Y2HH]

Ok, and here is the reason why this exists at jails...as I can give you a real world scenario.

 

Gangs are not as stupid as people think...

 

"Here's what you have to do to become a member...you have a clean record...so get arrested for a 'minor' offense...being that you have no prior records, they won't search you...so what you're going to do is sneak this shank into the jail...after you're in, you're to give it to this person, who will then slay rival gang leader X. Upon his death, you're a full member. They'll never know it was you, either. After you're released, come back to us. TYVM."

 

There are pretty good reasons why jails strip search people...reasons you haven't thought of, or think would never happen.

[StrangeSox]

The logic leap you just made went from government granted POLICE powers to low paid TSA agents without training? Really?

 

It doesn't go that far...it's police powers versus not.

 

TSA agents have training and are federal employees.

 

But the question was more about "how far do you want to allow police measures to go in the name of security?"

[Y2HH]

TSA agents have training and are federal employees.

 

But the question was more about "how far do you want to allow police measures to go in the name of security?"

 

As far as is necessary.

 

Like I've previously stated, which you seem to refuse to believe...but police don't actually go around looking for innocent people to arrest, strip search and throw in jail. I know this sounds crazy and insane...but they actually look for criminals, and in that wacky search, they sometimes get the wrong guy, and once in a while an innocent slips through the cracks. This is an unfortunate side effect of assholes existing in this world. Police often deal with the worst of the worst in terms of s***...so you and I won't have too.

[StrangeSox]

Ok, and here is the reason why this exists at jails...as I can give you a real world scenario.

 

Gangs are not as stupid as people think...

 

"Here's what you have to do to become a member...you have a clean record...so get arrested for a 'minor' offense...being that you have no prior records, they won't search you...so what you're going to do is sneak this shank into the jail...after you're in, you're to give it to this person, who will then slay rival gang leader X. Upon his death, you're a full member. They'll never know it was you, either. After you're released, come back to us. TYVM."

 

There are pretty good reasons why jails strip search people...reasons you haven't thought of, or think would never happen.

 

First, this "rival gang leader" would already be held in separate custody from general population because he's a known gang leader.

 

Second, is this strip search policy common at every jail? If not, why doesn't this scenario of yours happen all the time?

[StrangeSox]

As far as is necessary.

 

Like I've previously stated, which you seem to refuse to believe...but police don't actually go around looking for innocent people to arrest, strip search and throw in jail. I know this sounds crazy and insane...but they actually look for criminals, and in that wacky search, they sometimes get the wrong guy, and once in a while an innocent slips through the cracks. This is an unfortunate side effect of assholes existing in this world. Police often deal with the worst of the worst in terms of s***...so you and I won't have too.

 

I know this sounds crazy and insane, but that's not at all anywhere close to anything I've been saying. In fact, it seems much more like an absurd caricature of why I think ever-increasing police state policies are abhorrent.

[Y2HH]

First, this "rival gang leader" would already be held in separate custody from general population because he's a known gang leader.

 

Second, is this strip search policy common at every jail? If not, why doesn't this scenario of yours happen all the time?

 

First, that's not true aside from the top of the top when it comes to "known gang leaders", which you can count on one hand. Rival gang members, etc...all still exist.

 

You should make a visit to Cook County Jail once. There are intrem jails they are held at before being convicted and sentenced and moved to federal prisons.

 

Second, even at federal prisons where separation happens, there ARE times when they are intermixed.

 

There is a difference between holding cells, at your local police station, and a jail, such as cook county...or the federal prison they have in the middle of downtown Chicago.

[StrangeSox]

Breyer provides a list of some of the people that get strip-searched:

Amicus briefs present other instances in which individuals arrested for minor offenses have been subjected to the humiliations of a visual strip search. They include a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years, who was arrested for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration. Brief for Sister Bernie Galvin et al. as Amici Curiae 6. They include women who were strip-searched during periods of lactation or menstruation. Id., at 11–12 (describing humiliating experience of female student who was strip searched while menstruating); Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F. 3d 1278, 1282 (CA10 2008) (same for woman lactating). They include victims of sexual violence. Brief for Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project et al. as Amici Curiae. They include individuals detained for such infractions as driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, or riding a bicycle without an audible bell.Brief for Petitioner 11, 25; see also Mary Beth G., supra, at 1267, n. 2 (considering strip search of a person arrested for having outstanding parking tickets and a person arrestedfor making an improper left turn); Jones v. Edwards, 770

F. 2d 739, 741 (CA8 1985) (same for violation of dog leash law). They include persons who perhaps should never have been placed in the general jail population in the first place. See ante, at 2 (ALITO, J. concurring) (“admission to general jail population, with the concomitant humiliation of a strip search, may not be reasonable” for those “whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could not be held in available facilities apart from the general population”).

 

I need not go on. I doubt that we seriously disagreeabout the nature of the strip search or about the serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy that it presents. The basic question before us is whether such a search is nonetheless justified when an individual arrested for a minor offense is involuntarily placed in the general jail or prison population

 

And some evidence of the seriousness of the security risks mitigated by the invasive, humiliating searches:

 

The lack of justification for such a strip search is lessobvious but no less real in respect to the third interest, namely that of detecting contraband. The informationdemonstrating the lack of justification is of three kinds.First, there are empirically based conclusions reached inspecific cases. The New York Federal District Court, to which I have referred, conducted a study of 23,000 personsadmitted to the Orange County correctional facility between 1999 and 2003. Dodge, 282 F. Supp. 2d, at 69.These 23,000 persons underwent a strip search of the kind described, supra, at 1. Of these 23,000 persons, the court wrote, “the County encountered three incidents of drugsrecovered from an inmate’s anal cavity and two incidentsof drugs falling from an inmate’s underwear during the course of a strip search.” 282 F. Supp. 2d, at 69. The court added that in four of these five instances there may have been “reasonable suspicion” to search, leaving only one instance in 23,000 in which the strip search policy “arguably” detected additional contraband. Id., at 70. The study is imperfect, for search standards changed duringthe time it was conducted. Id., at 50–51. But the largenumber of inmates, the small number of “incidents,” and the District Court’s own conclusions make the study probative though not conclusive.

 

And then provides that many facilities do not permit suspicionless searches and nonetheless are not dens of murder from smuggled weapons:

Moreover, many correctional facilities apply a reasonable suspicion standard before strip searching inmatesentering the general jail population, including the U. S.Marshals Service, the Immigration and Customs Service,and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. See U. S. Marshals Serv., Policy Directive, Prisoner Custody-Body Searches §9.1(E)(3) (2010), http://www.usmarshals.gov/foia / Directives- Policy / prisoner_ops / body_searches.pdf; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standard: Searchesof Detainees 1 (2008), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/detention-st..._detainees.pdf; ICE/DRO, Detention Standard: Admission and Release 4–5(2008), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/detention-st...and_safety.pdf; Bureau of IndianAffairs, Office of Justice Servs., BIA Adult Detention Facility Guidelines 22 (Draft 2010). The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) itself forbids suspicionless strip searchesfor minor offenders, though it houses separately (and doesnot admit to the general jail population) a person who does not consent to such a search. See Dept. of Justice, BOP Program Statement 5140.38, p. 5. (2004), http://www. bop.gov/policy/progstat/5140_038.pdf.

 

Breyer then highlights that there's a lack of actual examples of the effectiveness of such a policy:

Nor do I find the majority’s lack of examples surprising. After all, those arrested for minor offenses are often stopped and arrested unexpectedly. And they consequently will have had little opportunity to hide things in their body cavities. Thus, the widespread advocacy byprison experts and the widespread application in manyStates and federal circuits of “reasonable suspicion” requirements indicates an ability to apply such standards in practice without unduly interfering with the legitimate penal interest in preventing the smuggling of contraband.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Breyer provides a list of some of the people that get strip-searched:

 

 

And some evidence of the seriousness of the security risks mitigated by the invasive, humiliating searches:

 

 

 

And then provides that many facilities do not permit suspicionless searches and nonetheless are not dens of murder from smuggled weapons:

 

 

Breyer then highlights that there's a lack of actual examples of the effectiveness of such a policy:

 

They can file civil suits. People do it all the time. If they're right, they'll get paid quite a bit to go away.

[Soxbadger]

It was an appeal from summary judgment, that does not mean the Plaintiff cant win on the merits of the case. This is a really technical issue, but the standard for Summary Judgment is a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Thus when the trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff it was saying that there was no fact pattern that could have possibly existed that could have allowed this.

 

Basically what the court is saying, is that having those systems are not per se violations of civil rights.

 

What the court is not saying, is that in this specific case, the facts may show that he should have never been arrested in the first place and therefore his rights were violated.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

They can file civil suits. People do it all the time. If they're right, they'll get paid quite a bit to go away.

 

Civil suits over what? Thanks to this ruling, it is clear that no rights are violated when someone is strip searched without suspicion.

[StrangeSox]

What the court is not saying, is that in this specific case, the facts may show that he should have never been arrested in the first place and therefore his rights were violated.

 

The ruling is over the issue of suspicion-less strip searches not wrongful detention.

[Y2HH]

Civil suits over what? Thanks to this ruling, it is clear that no rights are violated when someone is strip searched without suspicion.

 

You can still sue...and win. Because people have.

[StrangeSox]

You can still sue...and win. Because people have.

 

People have won what? Sue over what?

 

And that still doesn't make these policies unconstitutional and ban their implementation.

[Y2HH]

People have won what? Sue over what?

 

And that still doesn't make these policies unconstitutional and ban their implementation.

 

False arrest. If they arrest you for nothing and strip search you, they WILL lose in a civil case. Just because they CAN search you for no reason, doesn't mean they can arrest you for no reason.

[StrangeSox]

False arrest. If they arrest you for nothing and strip search you, they WILL lose in a civil case. Just because they CAN search you for no reason, doesn't mean they can arrest you for no reason.

 

This isn't about false arrest. It's about suspicionless strip searches. If you're properly arrested for an unpaid speeding ticket or riding your bike without a functional bell, you can be strip searched.

 

I find that appalling, you find it acceptable.

[Y2HH]

This isn't about false arrest. It's about suspicionless strip searches. If you're properly arrested for an unpaid speeding ticket or riding your bike without a functional bell, you can be strip searched.

 

I find that appalling, you find it acceptable.

 

Then don't break the law.

 

I find it acceptable because it WON'T happen just because it CAN happen. I've NEVER seen it happen, I've never heard of it happening...in this story he was searched before being admitted into a JAIL, not at a local police station holding cell.

 

I have outlined the reasons WHY police NEED to reserve the right to do this, for ANY reason. I realize you live in this utopia that nobody else lives in, and never have to deal with anything other than the greatest people in the world...but for the rest of us, and for the police that DO have to deal with the s*** heads of the world, they REQUIRE that right for various and many good reasons.

 

Again...can they abuse this privilege afforded them to do their jobs?? Yes. But most, that being 99.9999% of them, would NOT.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Then don't break the law.

 

I find it acceptable because it WON'T happen just because it CAN happen. I've NEVER seen it happen, I've never heard of it happening...in this story he was searching before being admitted into a jail, not at a local police station.

 

It DOES and DID happen, though. In fact, there was just a supreme court ruling where someone arrested for a minor offense of unpaid fines was strip searched! And the dissenting opinion provided numerous examples of people detained for minor offenses being strip searched.

 

That it was done at a jail and not a police station doesn't change anything. These are still people detained for minor offenses and not convicted of anything being subjected to humiliating and degrading searches.

[Y2HH]

It DOES and DID happen, though. In fact, there was just a supreme court ruling where someone arrested for a minor offense of unpaid fines was strip searched! And the dissenting opinion provided numerous examples of people detained for minor offenses being strip searched.

 

That it was done at a jail and not a police station doesn't change anything. These are still people detained for minor offenses and not convicted of anything being subjected to humiliating and degrading searches.

 

They were searched before entering a jail, not by the local police.

 

It's NOT the same.

 

ANYONE entering a jail MUST be searched like that.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Then don't break the law.

 

I find it acceptable because it WON'T happen just because it CAN happen. I've NEVER seen it happen, I've never heard of it happening...in this story he was searched before being admitted into a JAIL, not at a local police station holding cell.

 

I have outlined the reasons WHY police NEED to reserve the right to do this, for ANY reason. I realize you live in this utopia that nobody else lives in, and never have to deal with anything other than the greatest white people in the world...but for the rest of us, and for the police that DO have to deal with the s*** heads of the world, they REQUIRE that right for various and many good reasons.

 

Again...can they abuse this privilege afforded them to do their jobs?? Yes. But most, that being 99.9999% of them, would NOT.

 

This is the mandatory policy at these two jails and others as well. It is not solely about police abusing a power but about subjecting people who have been detained for minor offenses to intrusive searches.

 

I'm confused as to why you think I'm arguing from sort of of utopian position. You can recognize and weigh security risks and come to the conclusion that the most intrusive policies are not necessary, prudent or Constitutional.

[StrangeSox]

They were searched before entering a jail, not by the local police.

 

It's NOT the same.

 

ANYONE entering a jail MUST be searched like that.

 

did you read the parts of Breyer's dissent I copied? Many, many people entering numerous jails around the country are not searched like that. Numerous jail industry groups as cited by Breyer don't advocate for these policies you say are absolutely essential.