The Democrat Thread

[Y2HH]

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.

 

Because you can judge a book by it's cover, doesn't mean everyone else can.

 

That a good enough reason? Honestly, just because you are arrested for a minor offense, does not make you less potentially dangerous than anyone else. It's called precaution. It's exercised when deemed necessary, or at times, ALWAYS when being admitted into a shared cell at a prison.

 

If you are trying to make the point that the system isn't perfect...you're right, it's not...and nobody's saying it is. But show us a better one. Like they tell international travelers...if you're going to get arrested, get to your f***ing embassy and get arrested there.

[Y2HH]

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.

 

I never said they're essential to carry out...I said they're essential for those in the situation to have, in the case they need them.

 

Oh, and the supreme court agrees.

[Soxbadger]

This is a gray area. Im pretty consistently pro-defendant, but its also very clear once you are in jail you lose a substantial amount of rights.

 

That being said, even with this ruling, it does not mean that you cant sue if your rights are violated. It just merely states that having a policy of strip searching when having inmates enter into a jail, is not a per say rights violation.

 

[Y2HH]

This is a gray area. Im pretty consistently pro-defendant, but its also very clear once you are in jail you lose a substantial amount of rights.

 

That being said, even with this ruling, it does not mean that you cant sue if your rights are violated. It just merely states that having a policy of strip searching when having inmates enter into a jail, is not a per say rights violation.

 

That's pretty much how I see it, too.

[StrangeSox]

Because you can judge a book by it's cover, doesn't mean everyone else can.

 

That a good enough reason? Honestly, just because you are arrested for a minor offense, does not make you less potentially dangerous than anyone else. It's called precaution. It's exercised when deemed necessary, or at times, ALWAYS when being admitted into a shared cell at a prison.

 

If you are trying to make the point that the system isn't perfect...you're right, it's not...and nobody's saying it is. But show us a better one. Like they tell international travelers...if you're going to get arrested, get to your f***ing embassy and get arrested there.

 

Federal detention centers explicitly bar a policy of suspicionless searches. There's a better system.

[Y2HH]

Federal detention centers explicitly bar a policy of suspicionless searches. There's a better system.

 

So your complaint is about a single jail. Then don't get arrested around there...I know your a criminal and all, so stay away from that jail.

[StrangeSox]

So your complaint is about a single jail. Then don't get arrested around there...I know your a criminal and all, so stay away from that jail.

 

My complaint is about the SC's ruling that these jails' policy of strip searching without suspicion is Constitutional and another step down the police state mentality road.

[Y2HH]

My complaint is about the SC's ruling that these jails' policy of strip searching without suspicion is Constitutional and another step down the police state mentality road.

 

You mean the traffic cameras they're putting up all over the place wasn't enough of a reminder of this for you...but this is?!

[southsider2k5]

My complaint is about the SC's ruling that these jails' policy of strip searching without suspicion is Constitutional and another step down the police state mentality road.

 

Just think of it as a mandatory colonoscopy.

[StrangeSox]

You mean the traffic cameras they're putting up all over the place wasn't enough of a reminder of this for you...but this is?!

 

Britain and the US seem to be in a race over who can be more terrible in these regards.

 

British lawmakers and rights activists joined a chorus of protest Monday against plans by the government to give the intelligence and security services the ability to monitor the phone calls, e-mails, text messages and Internet use of every person in the country.

 

[Soxbadger]

Police state would be things like unreasonable searches, patriot act, criminals have no expectation of privacy, etc.

 

Once some one is in jail, almost by definition, they are involved in a police state.

 

Furthermore, what is the real goal here? To allow inmates to have more contraband?

 

There is an important difference between being in jail and being free.

[Y2HH]

Police state would be things like unreasonable searches, patriot act, criminals have no expectation of privacy, etc.

 

Once some one is in jail, almost by definition, they are involved in a police state.

 

Furthermore, what is the real goal here? To allow inmates to have more contraband?

 

There is an important difference between being in jail and being free.

 

Not in the SS utopia...to which you are not invited. In the SS Utopia, being in Jail is where you want to be...that's where all the good stuff is. Being "free" is bad...that's where we live. It's like the Nightclub from Night at the Roxberry...

[StrangeSox]

There's something hilarious about talking about freedom while defending the right of the police state to have mandatory strip searches if you're detained for any reason.

 

This is not prison, these are not people convicted of crimes. They may have done nothing wrong but may still be subjected to strip searches without any reason for suspicion.

 

If your daughter was detained for violating a leash law, would you be perfectly accepting of her being strip searched?

[Y2HH]

There's something hilarious about talking about freedom while defending the right of the police state to have mandatory strip searches if you're detained for any reason.

 

This is not prison, these are not people convicted of crimes. They may have done nothing wrong but may still be subjected to strip searches without any reason for suspicion.

 

If your daughter was detained for violating a leash law, would you be perfectly accepting of her being strip searched?

 

Just because they can does not mean they will. I don't know a single police officer that would do that, and I know many. Not to mention shes 1...and they'd be in prison and then dead within about 8 seconds of being admitted into jail if they did. So...no.

 

I understand you are trying to highlight an extreme to make a point, and I understand your point. This is why you are one of my favorite posters here...you make me think even though I tend to disagree with you at times.

 

Abuses can unfortunately exist in a society where police need specialized rights to reign in crime and deal with criminals. As I've said, innocents CAN fall through the cracks, but that is NOT their goal.

[NorthSideSox72]

There's something hilarious about talking about freedom while defending the right of the police state to have mandatory strip searches if you're detained for any reason.

 

This is not prison, these are not people convicted of crimes. They may have done nothing wrong but may still be subjected to strip searches without any reason for suspicion.

 

If your daughter was detained for violating a leash law, would you be perfectly accepting of her being strip searched?

You have gone so far over the top now. Mandatory strip searches if you are detained for any reason? False on its face. No reason for suspicion? False. Detained for leash law and going to jail? False.

 

[Y2HH]

You have gone so far over the top now. Mandatory strip searches if you are detained for any reason? False on its face. No reason for suspicion? False. Detained for leash law and going to jail? False.

 

As I said in my reply above yours, I understand he's reaching for an extreme to make a point...but his extreme requires outstanding systemic abuse of police powers...abuses no sane officer would ever perform. I get his point...but it's highlighted to the extreme. He seems to think police abuse their powers more often than not...and I've noticed this from the Internet community at large...a large swatch of Internet denizens seem to believe this about police.

 

I have news for them on the contrary, police are NOT like this. They get a few stories per year and latch onto them as if they're everyday occurrences. They're not. The stories you read about bad officers and abuse of power are the 0.1%...the stories you never read are the ones that constitute the other 99.9%. But meh...in THIS case, we don't care about the mass majority...we care about the talking points 0.1%.

[Jenksismyhero]

Just think of it as a mandatory colonoscopy.

 

[Soxbadger]

At some point there is a line of what is reasonable.

 

Its a deprivation of rights when you are handcuffed, when you are put in a police car, when you are taken to the station.

 

All of these things can occur before you are even officially charged with a crime. As a society we have determined that there are some instances where rights may be given up, by an innocent, so that society can function.

 

What if you couldnt handcuff people until they were convicted? How would that impact the system?

 

This is the same logic that is being applied here.

 

Right or wrong, Im not sure that a strip search (without touching) is a per se rights violation.

 

If we are going to get crazy about police states, lets start with the Federal Govt raids in California on medical marijuana distribution centers.

[StrangeSox]

You have gone so far over the top now. Mandatory strip searches if you are detained for any reason? False on its face. No reason for suspicion? False. Detained for leash law and going to jail? False.

Those are the actual facts of this case. The leash law detention was brought up in one of the briefs and mentioned in the dissent. These jails have mandatory strip searches for anyone processed in. please read the ruling before accusing me of going over the top.

 

[iamshack]

I have to say that I agree with SS here...have you ever seen these searches? How incredibly humiliating and intrusive they are? If it is possible for a person who has done absolutely nothing wrong to experience that before an administrative error is detected, than I have to believe something is broken here.

 

There is absolutely no reason why it was necessary for this man to experience this prior to them discovering the error.

[Soxbadger]

Iamshack,

 

There is a reason. They are trying to prevent contraband from getting into the general population (this ruling is about strip search prior to being introduced into general population.)

 

The problem for the system if the Court rules the other way is as follows. If I am member of a gang, I use the fact that they can not strip search for minor offenses, to get contraband into the jail. I have other cronies come in for stupid things, and they have the contraband. If it is illegal for the Jail to strip search without probable cause, there is a high chance that this contraband can enter the jail, because I know they are unlikely to search.

 

If on the other hand, the Court rules that strip searches are not a per se violation of the 4th amendment, that means there may be a strip search and thus contraband is more difficult.

 

I dont believe the Court specifically ruled on the facts of this case. I do not believe they said that even if the police make grave errors and there is a complete miscarriage of justice, that the Plainitiff cant recover. I believe what they are saying is that any criminal cant sue the jail, just for simply having a strip search and further, the jail doesnt have to prove they had reasonable suspicion.

 

I didnt fully read the brief, because its way to long to not get paid for.

[StrangeSox]

Just because they can does not mean they will. I don't know a single police officer that would do that, and I know many. Not to mention shes 1...and they'd be in prison and then dead within about 8 seconds of being admitted into jail if they did. So...no.

 

I understand you are trying to highlight an extreme to make a point, and I understand your point. This is why you are one of my favorite posters here...you make me think even though I tend to disagree with you at times.

 

Abuses can unfortunately exist in a society where police need specialized rights to reign in crime and deal with criminals. As I've said, innocents CAN fall through the cracks, but that is NOT their goal.

This isn't a question of abuse but of policy. Anyone admitted to these two jails is strip searched. There isn't a question of police abuse.

 

It isn't even a question of wrongful arrest.

[iamshack]

Iamshack,

 

There is a reason. They are trying to prevent contraband from getting into the general population (this ruling is about strip search prior to being introduced into general population.)

 

The problem for the system if the Court rules the other way is as follows. If I am member of a gang, I use the fact that they can not strip search for minor offenses, to get contraband into the jail. I have other cronies come in for stupid things, and they have the contraband. If it is illegal for the Jail to strip search without probable cause, there is a high chance that this contraband can enter the jail, because I know they are unlikely to search.

 

If on the other hand, the Court rules that strip searches are not a per se violation of the 4th amendment, that means there may be a strip search and thus contraband is more difficult.

 

I dont believe the Court specifically ruled on the facts of this case. I do not believe they said that even if the police make grave errors and there is a complete miscarriage of justice, that the Plainitiff cant recover. I believe what they are saying is that any criminal cant sue the jail, just for simply having a strip search and further, the jail doesnt have to prove they had reasonable suspicion.

 

I didnt fully read the brief, because its way to long to not get paid for.

I understand that...and I didn't read it either.

 

But what the hell happened from when the guy was arrested to when he was submitted to two strip searches? What were they doing in regards to the supposed fine he did not pay? They really couldn't resolve this issue prior to admitting him into the general population of a prison?

 

I understand your point in regards to contraband, it just seems that for this kind of offender, there should be some other holding area. But then again, I don't really know much about the logistics of the prison system.

[NorthSideSox72]

Those are the actual facts of this case. The leash law detention was brought up in one of the briefs and mentioned in the dissent. These jails have mandatory strip searches for anyone processed in. please read the ruling before accusing me of going over the top.

Show me where or how someone who violated a leash law goes to jail.

 

Show me how someone goes to jail who hasn't been either convicted or charged with a crime - and therefore has no reasonable suspicion attached.

 

You are not stating the actual facts of the case, you are stringing together some hypothetical scenarios, interlaced with a broadness that this ruling does not take on, to paint a picture of a police state. I am saying you are factually wrong.

 

[StrangeSox]

Show me where or how someone who violated a leash law goes to jail.

 

Show me how someone goes to jail who hasn't been either convicted or charged with a crime - and therefore has no reasonable suspicion attached.

 

You are not stating the actual facts of the case, you are stringing together some hypothetical scenarios, interlaced with a broadness that this ruling does not take on, to paint a picture of a police state. I am saying you are factually wrong.

 

First I'll tell you to read the ruling and the dissent since this is all in there. I've already c-p'ed the relevant parts in this thread.

 

But then I'll do your homework for you:

 

Breyers citing various briefs to the court that highlight people detained for incredibly minor issues including leash laws

They include individualsdetained for such infractions as driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use aturn 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 leashlaw).

 

The summary of the case in the ruling, which states that Florence was detained pursuant to a bench warrant for an unpaid fine.

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.

 

Please note that I did not claim that people subject to these searches have not been charged with a crime, though I don't believe that's necessarily true in order to be detained. You can be held without charges for a certain period of time. I defer to people with more experience on the matter for that. However, simply being charged with a crime does not warrant suspicion for a strip search. That would be tautological in that by definition no strip search in a jail would be without suspicion. Given that this issue made it to the SC, that the language of suspicionless searches is used frequently and that no one is arguing for the definition you're attempting, I am forced to assume that you are wrong.

 

These are the facts of the case:

 

1) Florence was arrested for an unpaid fine. The accuracy of the warrant is not relevant to the claims of 4th and 14th amendment violations.

 

2) Florence was detained by police and transferred to two different jails. These jails both have mandatory strip searches for all incoming detainees.

 

3) Pursuant to said policy, Florence was strip searched twice. He was not arrested for a violent crime or in any way related to violence or drugs.

 

4) Per the SC ruling, such a policy of strip searching every incoming detainee to the jails is not a violation of your 4th or 14th amendment rights. This does not mean that the SC has now mandated such a policy but that such a policy is perfectly legitimate if a jail so chooses. A ruling in favor of Florence would also not have been any strip searches, just those without suspicion.

 

 

 

Even if we leave aside the extreme examples of people being detained for extremely minor offenses such as leash laws, you cannot ignore that you can still be detained for any number of non-violent, non-drug related misdemeanors such as traffic violations or unpaid fines.