The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

I'd also like to note that I do not rely on any hypothetical scenarios as Florence was actually arrested and detained and subjected to mandatory strip searches for a simple failure to pay a fine.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

This is not correct. First, if you are a known gang member, then there's reason for suspicion.

 

Second, many jails around the country do not employ these policies and yet we don't see this problem.

[StrangeSox]

Also maybe a bigger issue is that people are detained for such petty offenses in the first place!

[Y2HH]

This is not correct. First, if you are a known gang member, then there's reason for suspicion.

 

Second, many jails around the country do not employ these policies and yet we don't see this problem.

 

This is what's incorrect.

 

In these cases, the gang members are NOT known gang members...they'd be initiates that have no gang affiliations to this point...hence how they'd use "applying members" to get contraband into the jail.

 

OR, to drive the point further, they could threaten a non gang member into doing it for them and say that if they didn't, they'll retaliate against a family member, etc...there are so many functional scenarios they could employ to get a person into the prison FOR them.

 

I've ALREADY stated this, you AGAIN choose to ignore it.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

Also maybe a bigger issue is that people are detained for such petty offenses in the first place!

I think that is where I was going...it's kind of frightening that they would hold you in jail for not having a bell on your f***ing bicycle.

[Y2HH]

I think that is where I was going...it's kind of frightening that they would hold you in jail for not having a bell on your f***ing bicycle.

 

Because they wouldn't. They technically CAN, but it's not something they'd do.

 

You guys are taking these examples off the deep end. You show me a person that's been put in prison and strip searched for not having a bell on their bicycle.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

I'd also like to note that I do not rely on any hypothetical scenarios as Florence was actually arrested and detained and subjected to mandatory strip searches for a simple failure to pay a fine.

 

This is NOT why.

 

He was arrested and detained because there was an active warrant out for his arrest. Why the warrant is issued is meaningless to the police officer...the officer CANNOT let him go with the warrant outstanding...or the officer could and probably would get fired if this was discovered.

 

I know you don't give a s*** about someone elses livelihood...but losing your job in this regard would pretty much relegate you to being a mall security guard making minimum wage for the rest of your life...so no, officers don't tend to "not care" when warrants are outstanding. It's not the cops fault the warrant wasn't cleared off the computer...whoever failed to clear it is at fault...not the police for doing their jobs.

[StrangeSox]

This is NOT why.

 

He was arrested and detained because there was an active warrant out for his arrest. Why the warrant is issued is meaningless to the police officer...the officer CANNOT let him go with the warrant outstanding...or the officer could and probably would get fired if this was discovered.

 

This is not what I have an issue with. It is brought up to highlight that you can be detained in jail for minor offenses. Being detained for a minor offense can result in you being subjected to a mandatory strip search.

 

I know you don't give a s*** about someone elses livelihood...but losing your job in this regard would pretty much relegate you to being a mall security guard making minimum wage for the rest of your life...so no, officers don't tend to "not care" when warrants are outstanding. It's not the cops fault the warrant wasn't cleared off the computer...whoever failed to clear it is at fault...not the police for doing their jobs.

 

I really don't know what you're trying to get at here. I do not fault the arresting officer. I fault the policy of mandatory strip searches and the SC ruling.

[iamshack]

This is NOT why.

 

He was arrested and detained because there was an active warrant out for his arrest. Why the warrant is issued is meaningless to the police officer...the officer CANNOT let him go with the warrant outstanding...or the officer could and probably would get fired if this was discovered.

 

I know you don't give a s*** about someone elses livelihood...but losing your job in this regard would pretty much relegate you to being a mall security guard making minimum wage for the rest of your life...so no, officers don't tend to "not care" when warrants are outstanding. It's not the cops fault the warrant wasn't cleared off the computer...whoever failed to clear it is at fault...not the police for doing their jobs.

Understood. However, there are issues with warrants all the time. It isn't as though there has never been something in the governmental bureaucracy that was inaccurate due to misfiled or mishandled paperwork. One would think if the guy produced a receipt showing he paid said fine, insisted that said fine was paid, that they could check before they submitted him to the general prison population.

 

I guess I'm not going to go as far as SS here, but I'd award the guy one hell of a recovery (at least mid 5 figures) if I was the judge.

[StrangeSox]

Because they wouldn't. They technically CAN, but it's not something they'd do.

 

You guys are taking these examples off the deep end. You show me a person that's been put in prison and strip searched for not having a bell on their bicycle.

 

I can show you a person who has been arrested and strip searched for not paying a fine. Perhaps later this afternoon I'll read through the various briefs to see exactly what Breyer was referencing.

[Y2HH]

I can show you a person who has been arrested and strip searched for not paying a fine. Perhaps later this afternoon I'll read through the various briefs to see exactly what Breyer was referencing.

 

No, you can show me a person that was arrested because there was a warrant outstanding for his arrest.

 

What the warrant was for, again, means nothing. The fact that the warrant existed is the crux of the problem.

[StrangeSox]

I guess I'm not going to go as far as SS here, but I'd award the guy one hell of a recovery (at least mid 5 figures) if I was the judge.

 

I'm honestly curious, where do you (or anyone else, for that matter) think I am going?

 

My sole contention is with the Constitutionality of suspicionless strip searches at jails. I would not have an issue if this was done at prisons where appropriate. I don't have an issue with the officer arresting him on a valid warrant. I don't have an issue with strip searches where there is suspicion.

[StrangeSox]

No, you can show me a person that was arrested because there was a warrant outstanding for his arrest.

 

What the warrant was for, again, means nothing. The fact that the warrant existed is the crux of the problem.

 

The legitimacy of the warrant really is irrelevant. That's not what the lawsuit was over and that's not what the ruling covers. The ruling is over the Constitutionality of suspicionless strip searches as a policy at jails.

[Y2HH]

Understood. However, there are issues with warrants all the time. It isn't as though there has never been something in the governmental bureaucracy that was inaccurate due to misfiled or mishandled paperwork. One would think if the guy produced a receipt showing he paid said fine, insisted that said fine was paid, that they could check before they submitted him to the general prison population.

 

I guess I'm not going to go as far as SS here, but I'd award the guy one hell of a recovery (at least mid 5 figures) if I was the judge.

 

Really? I mean, really?

 

Officer: (After running plates/license) "Oh, wow...this guy has a warrant out for his arrest." Calls in to dispatcher, who double checks, dispatcher verifies warrant is active.

 

Officer: "Sir, step out of the car and put your hands behind your back, you're being placed under arrest for an outstanding warrant..."

 

Innocent Guy With Warrant Out For His Arrest: "Oh, that's for a fine I paid...I even have the receipt! You can trust this is a valid receipt, as I'm sure you know exactly what a valid receipt looks like from every fine paid...please officer, take my word for it, not the federal/state computer system! I swear if you get in trouble for not arresting me because I have a receipt, I'll support your family for the rest of your life when you're fired for not making the arrest now that you've looked up my ID/Plates and spoken with a dispatcher that KNOWS you were supposed to make an arrest!"

 

Ok, I think I made my point.

 

There is the real world...and then there is the fantasy world. The receipt is NOT grounds enough for the officer to NOT make the arrest. I know you don't want to believe that...but that's life.

[StrangeSox]

This is what's incorrect.

 

In these cases, the gang members are NOT known gang members...they'd be initiates that have no gang affiliations to this point...hence how they'd use "applying members" to get contraband into the jail.

 

OR, to drive the point further, they could threaten a non gang member into doing it for them and say that if they didn't, they'll retaliate against a family member, etc...there are so many functional scenarios they could employ to get a person into the prison FOR them.

 

I've ALREADY stated this, you AGAIN choose to ignore it.

 

I have not ignored this. I've asked what weight should be given to these hypotheticals since many jails do not have mandatory strip search policies and do not have these problems. The evidence that the mandatory policies are effective in preventing contraband appears to be scant at best, as Breyer cites in his dissent.

[Y2HH]

The legitimacy of the warrant really is irrelevant. That's not what the lawsuit was over and that's not what the ruling covers. The ruling is over the Constitutionality of suspicionless strip searches as a policy at jails.

 

No, that's the f***ing point. The warrant is NOT irrelevant, for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

 

The police/jail he's brought too do NOT have a choice. It's a warrant issued by a judge, which they CANNOT ignore, even if it's in error...they HAVE to process, or they'd be terminated.

[Y2HH]

I have not ignored this. I've asked what weight should be given to these hypotheticals since many jails do not have mandatory strip search policies and do not have these problems. The evidence that the mandatory policies are effective in preventing contraband appears to be scant at best, as Breyer cites in his dissent.

 

It probably, and very likely, depends on the kind of jail you are talking about.

 

No, the jail they put Bernie Madoff in probably doesn't have a policy of mandatory strip searches.

 

Cook County Jail on the other hand, with a mixed gang population in a general arrest room...probably does.

[StrangeSox]

Really? I mean, really?

 

Officer: (After running plates/license) "Oh, wow...this guy has a warrant out for his arrest." Calls in to dispatcher, who double checks, dispatcher verifies warrant is active.

 

Officer: "Sir, step out of the car and put your hands behind your back, you're being placed under arrest for an outstanding warrant..."

 

Innocent Guy With Warrant Out For His Arrest: "Oh, that's for a fine I paid...I even have the receipt! You can trust this is a valid receipt, as I'm sure you know exactly what a valid receipt looks like from every fine paid...please officer, take my word for it, not the federal/state computer system! I swear if you get in trouble for not arresting me because I have a receipt, I'll support your family for the rest of your life when you're fired for not making the arrest now that you've looked up my ID/Plates and spoken with a dispatcher that KNOWS you were supposed to make an arrest!"

 

Ok, I think I made my point.

 

There is the real world...and then there is the fantasy world. The receipt is NOT grounds enough for the officer to NOT make the arrest. I know you don't want to believe that...but that's life.

 

I believe that the SC has explicitly ruled that officers do not have to give credence to exculpatory evidence like a receipt showing he paid. I am not taking issue with the arresting officer's actions.

[StrangeSox]

No, that's the f***ing point. The warrant is NOT irrelevant, for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

 

The police/jail he's brought too do NOT have a choice. It's a warrant issued by a judge, which they CANNOT ignore, even if it's in error...they HAVE to process, or they'd be terminated.

 

But no one here is arguing that so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

 

That the warrant was illegitimate makes this ruling even more absurd, but even if it wasn't due to a computer error, we'd still have someone detained for a minor offense being subjected to multiple strip searches. That is what is at issue in this case, not wrongful arrest.

[Y2HH]

I believe that the SC has explicitly ruled that officers do not have to give credence to exculpatory evidence like a receipt showing he paid. I am not taking issue with the arresting officer's actions.

 

The officers working at the jail/facility fall under the same rules...they HAVE to process it as a legitimate warrant, even if it's in error. The guy should file suit for the embarrassment he suffered due to their clerical error...and he'd win, they'd settle that out of court in a minute.

[StrangeSox]

It probably, and very likely, depends on the kind of jail you are talking about.

 

No, the jail they put Bernie Madoff in probably doesn't have a policy of mandatory strip searches.

 

Cook County Jail on the other hand, with a mixed gang population in a general arrest room...probably does.

 

Federal jails are explicitly barred from enacting such policies. Prisoners who do not consent to a strip search are not placed in general population. I do not know if all prisoners are given that choice or if it is done on a suspicion basis.

[StrangeSox]

The officers working at the jail/facility fall under the same rules...they HAVE to process it as a legitimate warrant, even if it's in error. The guy should file suit for the embarrassment he suffered due to their clerical error...and he'd win, they'd settle that out of court in a minute.

 

Great, again, no one is arguing that here. The issue is the policy of mandatory strip searching all detainees such that officers are not given deference on who is reasonable to search and who isn't.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Great, again, no one is arguing that here. The issue is the policy of mandatory strip searching all detainees such that officers are not given deference on who is reasonable to search and who isn't.

 

It depends on the facility. Federal Prisons have private non general population holding cells...many smaller prisons do not. So they don't have the same choices available at the federal level.

[Y2HH]

But no one here is arguing that so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

 

That the warrant was illegitimate makes this ruling even more absurd, but even if it wasn't due to a computer error, we'd still have someone detained for a minor offense being subjected to multiple strip searches. That is what is at issue in this case, not wrongful arrest.

 

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.

[iamshack]

Really? I mean, really?

 

Officer: (After running plates/license) "Oh, wow...this guy has a warrant out for his arrest." Calls in to dispatcher, who double checks, dispatcher verifies warrant is active.

 

Officer: "Sir, step out of the car and put your hands behind your back, you're being placed under arrest for an outstanding warrant..."

 

Innocent Guy With Warrant Out For His Arrest: "Oh, that's for a fine I paid...I even have the receipt! You can trust this is a valid receipt, as I'm sure you know exactly what a valid receipt looks like from every fine paid...please officer, take my word for it, not the federal/state computer system! I swear if you get in trouble for not arresting me because I have a receipt, I'll support your family for the rest of your life when you're fired for not making the arrest now that you've looked up my ID/Plates and spoken with a dispatcher that KNOWS you were supposed to make an arrest!"

 

Ok, I think I made my point.

 

There is the real world...and then there is the fantasy world. The receipt is NOT grounds enough for the officer to NOT make the arrest. I know you don't want to believe that...but that's life.

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.