Repug SCOTUS: License To Strip Search Anyone Anytime

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court OKs strip searches for even minor offenses


Washington-- The Supreme Court refused Monday to limit strip searches of new jail inmates, even those arrested for minor traffic offenses.

Dividing 5-4 along ideological lines, the high court said jail guards needed the full authority to closely search everyone who is entering a jail in order to maintain safety and security.

It would be “unworkable,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, to make an exception for persons who are arrested for minor offenses. County jails often must process hundreds of new inmates a day, he said.

"Experience shows that people arrested for minor offense have tried to smuggle prohibited items into jail," Kennedy said. And officials cannot take such a risk, he added.

The decision is a defeat for civil liberties groups and a New Jersey man who was strip-searched twice after he was stopped on a highway and taken to jail over an unpaid fine.

Albert Florence was held for six days and finally released when he showed the fine had already been paid before he was arrested. He then sued county jail officials for violating his privacy and subjecting him to a humiliating strip search.

A judge ruled in his favor, but he lost before the U.S. Court of Appeals. In delivering his opinion, Kennedy said violent criminals sometimes are arrested for minor traffic offenses.

He cited the example of Timothy McVeigh,the man who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. He was stopped and taken to jail for a traffic violation. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined with Kennedy.

In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said it was unreasonable to subject possibly innocent persons to humiliating searches, particularly when they are not suspected of a serious crime.

"In my view, such a search of an individual arrested for a minor offense that does not involve drugs or violence is an unreasonable search forbidden by the 4th Amendment," he wrote. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=1895067&postId=1895067&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=5217&curAbsIndex=0&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A5217%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

====

America is Fucked and UnFuckable (c)

Strip searching is already abused, now the Repugs approve the police strip searching any juicy DUI teen chick.

[Blake]

Anyone, any time?

[CosmicCowboy]

I see it just as a simple security issue. The only way they know for sure that dangerous items aren't getting into the jail (even accidentally) is to search everyone.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wouldn't it be discriminatory to strip search the black gang banger and not search the white suburbanite kid busted for shoplifting?

[Blake]

Unless they build a separate jail for misdemeanor violators, it's really hard to argue against strip searching everyone coming in.

[clambake]

Wouldn't it be discriminatory to strip search the black gang banger and not search the white suburbanite kid busted for shoplifting?

one is a crime....the other is just a prank

[z0sa]

Repug SCOTUS: License To Strip Search Anyone Anytime

The usual pitiful twisting and lying from you

[TeyshaBlue]

Unless they build a separate jail for misdemeanor violators, it's really hard to argue against strip searching everyone coming in.

Zactly.

[cheguevara]

people are willing to lose their civil liberties so easily. Just look at this thread, most didn't see an issue. Until for some traffic misunderstanding they will be spreading their ass cheeks for all officers to see.

Don't be willing to so easily lose your liberties people. Wake up

[elbamba]

Chief Justice wrote a concurring opinion that wants to limit the search to people entereing general population I believe.

[boutons_deux]

May all you right-wing assholes, your girlfriends, mothers, daughters be stripped search repeatedly.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ hatebot

[CosmicCowboy]

I'll bet Boutons hated the showers in PE.

[boutons_deux]

You right-wingers and families who support this Repug decision deserve to be strip searched.

[cheguevara]

the sad thing about this is most regular folk don't know what they are really giving up for their so called fake "security"

the police state is growing. and the common folk doesn't care.

[CosmicCowboy]

You right-wingers and families who support this Repug decision deserve to be strip searched.

pfft

It's just a strip search

bein nekkid ain't no big deal.

[cheguevara]

pfft

It's just a strip search

bein nekkid ain't no big deal.

that's what's sad. Just because an average Joe doesn't mind being strip searched, doesn't mean our young men/women, mothers and grandmas need to be subjected to this.

tell that to the poor old lady who got injured while being strip searched:

xUMsE_fauBE

[boutons_deux]

your 18 year old daughter or your wife being strip searched by male cops, or while male cops watch female cops do the strip search is no big deal for you, ok.

[boutons_deux]

btw, CC and similar ilk, strip searching includes cavity searching (vagina and anus) for "security".

[boutons_deux]

and you can be sure the sicko cops will have their phone cameras snapping away.

[Blake]

people are willing to lose their civil liberties so easily. Just look at this thread, most didn't see an issue. Until for some traffic misunderstanding they will be spreading their ass cheeks for all officers to see.

Don't be willing to so easily lose your liberties people. Wake up

Are you for absolutely no strip searches on anyone arrested?

[CosmicCowboy]

btw, CC and similar ilk, strip searching includes cavity searching (vagina and anus) for "security".

Are you saying you didn't enjoy it?...:lol

[cheguevara]

Are you for absolutely no strip searches on anyone arrested?

I'm against the loss of civil liberties of citizens. Why should a person lose their civil liberties for "allegedly" minor traffic/other offenses?

strip search is an invasive procedure.

[EVAY]

I'm against the loss of civil liberties of citizens. Why should a person lose their civil liberties for "allegedly" minor traffic/other offenses?

strip search is an invasive procedure.


Does the fourth amendment mean anything at all anymore?

[cheguevara]

Does the fourth amendment mean anything at all anymore?

the police state does not want to bother with such nuances as supported probable cause, or judicially approved warrants. You know, things like following the law of the land.

[Blake]

I'm against the loss of civil liberties of citizens. Why should a person lose their civil liberties for "allegedly" minor traffic/other offenses?

strip search is an invasive procedure.

What about a repeat felon arrested for murder?

[cheguevara]

You right-wingers and families who support this Repug decision deserve to be strip searched.

:lol

it's funny that fake "conservatives" are afraid of the government regulating their guns. You know because the constitution protects gun ownership, in case the citizens need to revolt against the government. Like that makes a lot of sense, a few gun nuts vs. the US Armed Forces :lmao

but in the case of civil liberties, they could give 2 shits. "take it all, as long as I get to keep my guns"

it is flabbergasting :rolleyes

[cheguevara]

What about a repeat felon arrested for murder?

"supported probable cause" :toast

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ the concept of civil liberties in jail. You weenies clearly don't get it.

If they are going into the general jail/prison population they have already lost a shitload of rights. They have to control contraband in prisons. Searches on entrance are the easiest way. Cant' believe you guys are so worked up about this unless you have already had the prostate exam in the past.

[Blake]

"supported probable cause" :toast

So you're ok with violating a person's right to privacy as long as there is "probable cause".

lol smh

[cheguevara]

:lmao @ the concept of civil liberties in jail. You weenies clearly don't get it.

If they are going into the general jail/prison population they have already lost a shitload of rights. They have to control contraband in prisons. Searches on entrance are the easiest way. Cant' believe you guys are so worked up about this unless you have already had the prostate exam in the past.

huh, I think we are all talking about detainment/arrest not serving jail time. You have not been proven guilty by the courts and you are not "joining the general prison population"

[cheguevara]

So you're ok with violating a person's right to privacy as long as there is "probable cause".

lol smh

I would suggest you read the 4th ammendment:
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

[Blake]

huh, I think we are all talking about detainment/arrest not serving jail time. You have not been proven guilty by the courts and you are not "joining the general prison population"

I don't think you understand how detainment works.

[cheguevara]

i don't think i understand how detainment for minor/traffic violations works.

fify

[Blake]

uh oh I'm about to look stupid so I better do something I think is funny.

Fify

[TheProfessor]

huh, I think we are all talking about detainment/arrest not serving jail time. You have not been proven guilty by the courts and you are not "joining the general prison population"
A distinction without much difference. If you are arrested, you are going to jail until you bond out. The police have a vested interest in ensuring that you aren't bringing contraband into jails. It would be unworkable to differentiate between bringing someone in on a nonviolent Class C Misdemeanor warrant or for something more serious.

[Winehole23]

supposedly we got this far without strip searches for everyone. why is it necessary now, if it wasn't in the past?

[Mr. Peabody]

A distinction without much difference. If you are arrested, you are going to jail until you bond out. The police have a vested interest in ensuring that you aren't bringing contraband into jails. It would be unworkable to differentiate between bringing someone in on a nonviolent Class C Misdemeanor warrant or for something more serious.

Why is it unworkable? Jails were doing it already. Also, I don't think the argument is over whether you can search someone upon entering jail, it's whether you can perform an invasive strip search.

[Mr. Peabody]

supposedly we got this far without strip searches for everyone. why is it necessary now, if it wasn't in the past?

:toast

[boutons_deux]

Someone You Love: Coming to a Gulag Near You

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/WakeUp-590.jpg


The security and surveillance state does not deal in nuance or ambiguity. Its millions of agents, intelligence gatherers, spies, clandestine operatives, analysts and armed paramilitary units live in a binary world of opposites, of good and evil, black and white, opponent and ally. There is nothing between. You are for us or against us. You are a patriot or an enemy of freedom. You either embrace the crusade to physically eradicate evildoers from the face of the Earth or you are an Islamic terrorist, a collaborator or an unwitting tool of terrorists. And now that we have created this monster it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to free ourselves from it. Our 16 national intelligence agencies and army of private contractors feed on paranoia, rumor, rampant careerism, demonization of critical free speech and often invented narratives. They justify their existence, and their consuming of vast governmental resources, by turning even the banal and the mundane into a potential threat. And by the time they finish, the nation will be a gulag.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/coming_to_a_gulag_near_you_20120402/

OBL destroying the WTC was the LEAST of the damage he visited on USA. The USA is now fucking itself to hell, while self-annointed "patriots" scream lies about their "freedoms".

[cheguevara]

A distinction without much difference. If you are arrested, you are going to jail until you bond out. The police have a vested interest in ensuring that you aren't bringing contraband into jails. It would be unworkable to differentiate between bringing someone in on a nonviolent Class C Misdemeanor warrant or for something more serious.

But you will not join the "general jail population"

it takes over 24-48 hours for your pneumonia, background and blood test results to come out. Until that comes out they do not mix you into the "general population".

for minor/traffic violations in no way shape or form they will hold you over 24 hours. (unless you have an outstanding warrant, then that's not minor)

[Blake]

for minor/traffic violations in no way shape or form they will hold you over 24 hours. (unless you have an outstanding warrant, then that's not minor)


I'm not sure you know what side of the fence you are on.

Lol.

[EVAY]

This appears to me to have been decided on the basis of "Well, the expedient thing to do is to subject everyone to this search (regardless if they have been found guilty or not) because the jails are so crowded that it is hard to decide who to search and who not to otherwise."

Doesn't that reasoning sound liked they are just saying that it is too hard to do it any other way and so your right to 'no unreasonable' search is not as imperative as the government's right to expedient processing of a jail population?

[cheguevara]

I don't know how to argue with each of Che's points so I'll just make a general statement of disagreement and insert a witty lol at the end.

Lol.

[Blake]

After all his whining and complaining of strip searches, Che apparently isn't aware he ended up agreeing with the SCOTUS in this case.

Rofl.

[Blake]

This appears to me to have been decided on the basis of "Well, the expedient thing to do is to subject everyone to this search (regardless if they have been found guilty or not) because the jails are so crowded that it is hard to decide who to search and who not to otherwise."

Doesn't that reasoning sound liked they are just saying that it is too hard to do it any other way and so your right to 'no unreasonable' search is not as imperative as the government's right to expedient processing of a jail population?

Where do you believe the line should be drawn as to what reasonable is and/or what type of detainee should be strip searched?

[cheguevara]

After all his whining and complaining of strip searches, Che apparently isn't aware he ended up agreeing with the SCOTUS in this case.

Rofl.

wrong. still against strip searches for minor/traffic violators.

My argument was that 99 out of 100 cases, they won't enter the general population so there was no need for strip searches.

Now for that guy that was held for 6 days, we'd have to know the details if he was processed and entered into the general population or where he was being held.

[Blake]

wrong. still against strip searches for minor/traffic violators.

My argument was that 99 out of 100 cases, they won't enter the general population so there was no need for strip searches.

Now for that guy that was held for 6 days, we'd have to know the details if he was processed and entered into the general population or where he was being held.

He had a warrant for his arrest. According to you, that's not minor.
You agree with the ruling.

Lol.

[leemajors]

I'll bet Boutons hated the showers in PE.

Did you enjoy them?

[Blake]

Did you enjoy them?

:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

They were just showers. I didn't have anything to be embarrassed about.

[leemajors]

They were just showers. I didn't have anything to be embarrassed about.

Me either, but the other guys who liked to slide around naked on their bellies made it kinda weird... Maybe they never had a slip and slide. I never understood why someone would want to slide around in soap scum and lord knows what else.

[TeyshaBlue]

Me either, but the other guys who liked to slide around naked on their bellies made it kinda weird... Maybe they never had a slip and slide. I never understood why someone would want to slide around in soap scum and lord knows what else.

*looks sideways @ leemajors*

[Blake]

Me either, but the other guys who liked to slide around naked on their bellies made it kinda weird... Maybe they never had a slip and slide. I never understood why someone would want to slide around in soap scum and lord knows what else.

Wtf. I thought it was bad enough when dudes would use a bar of soap they found on the floor in the shower stall.

[leemajors]

people in Victoria are weird.

[admiralsnackbar]

He cited the example of Timothy McVeigh,the man who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. He was stopped and taken to jail for a traffic violation. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined with Kennedy.


This is the head-scratcher: why even bring up McVeigh (or the 911 terrorist arrested under similar circumstances which this article omitted)?

How would strip-searching either terrorist have resulted in a different outcome? What could authorities hope to find stashed in those keisters which would have prevented the respective tragedies of OKC and 9/11? What did either terrorist do whilst in jail with their uninspected crotches that justifies the decision? The terrorist angle seems like an appeal to fear, not reason. (It's no doubt the paranoiac in me, but I'd be lying if I said that weird remark didn't make me suspicious of the decision in general.)

Regardless, the ruling is an open invitation to abuses and the consequent civil lawsuits. The TSA xray leak lawsuits will be chump change compared to the violations perpetrated by a larger and less-regulated level of law-enforcement professionals. Not that the justices should vote with the treasury's checkbook in mind, but sometimes the expensive road is expensive because it's a bad idea.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

[TheProfessor]

supposedly we got this far without strip searches for everyone. why is it necessary now, if it wasn't in the past?
I wouldn't say "necessary," though part of the opinion is devoted to the difficulties of processing inmates in larger counties. Not everyone will be strip-searched as a result of this decision at the county level. It's just not unreasonable to do so given the administrative concerns of running a jail.

The Court does seem a bit bipolar these days. They recognize constitutional facets for plea bargaining one day, then come down very "law and order" in this.

[CosmicCowboy]

and i literally mean that, before they tried to strip me they would have to kill me and i'd fight dirty as hell too..at least a couple of them would be losing testicles and eyeballs.

:lmao

dumbass

[Winehole23]

What virtually none of this anti-Florence commentary mentioned, though, was that the Obama DOJ formally urged (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/supreme-court-struggles-with-strip-searches/) the Court to reach the conclusion it reached. While the Obama administration and court conservatives have been at odds in a handful of high-profile cases (most notably Citizens United and the health care law), this is yet another case, in (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1207/Judge-dismisses-bid-to-remove-Anwar-al-Awlaki-from-US-kill-list) a long (http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/holder-v.-humanitarian-law-project) line (http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/node/16914), where the Obama administration was able to have its preferred policies judicially endorsed by getting right-wing judges to embrace them:
In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that in the interest of security, prisons could conduct visual body cavity searches of all detainees after they had contact with outsiders. For years after that ruling, lower courts ruled that the prison had to have a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee was concealing contraband before subjecting him to a strip search upon entering the facility.


But in recent years, some courts have begun to allow a blanket policy to strip search all arrestees.


The Obama administration is siding with the prisons in the case and urging the court to allow a blanket policy for all inmates set to enter the general prison population.
“When you have a rule that treats everyone the same,” Justice Department lawyer Nicole A. Saharsky argued, “you don’t have folks that are singled out. You don’t have any security gaps.”
As The Guardian said yesterday: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/02/supreme-court-strip-search-jail) “The decision was a victory for the jails and for the Obama administration, which argued for an across-the-board rule allowing strip-searches of all those entering the general jail population, even those arrested on minor offenses.” Civil rights lawyer Stephen Bergstein added (http://www.zcommunications.org/strip-searches-in-local-jails-by-stephen-bergstein):
This evidence suggesting that minor offenders are not smuggling contraband into jails was not good enough for the Obama administration, which is asking the Supreme Court to endorse the restrictive strip search policy in Florence. At oral argument, a lawyer for the Obama Justice Department told the Supreme Court that “[p]rotesters…who decide deliberately to get arrested… might be stopped by the police, they see the squad car behind them. They might have a gun or contraband in their car and think hey, I’m going to put that on my person, I just need to get it somewhere that is not going to be found during a patdown search, and then potentially they have the contraband with them.” This position would probably be identical to that advanced by a Republican presidential administration.
What makes the Obama DOJ’s position in favor of this broad strip-search authority particularly remarkable is that federal prisons do not even have this policy. As The New York Times‘ Adam Liptak explained (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&ref=us), “the procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures.”http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/the_obama_doj_and_strip_searches/singleton/

[cheguevara]

Obama = Bush 3.0

[boutons_deux]

How the US uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Our surveillance state shown considerable determination to intrude on citizens sexually. There's the sexual abuse of prisoners at Bagram – der Spiegel reports that "former inmates report incidents of … various forms of sexual humiliation. In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex". There was the stripping of Bradley Manning is solitary confinement. And there's the policy set up after the story of the "underwear bomber" to grope US travelers genitally or else force them to go through a machine – made by a company, Rapiscan, owned by terror profiteer and former DHA czar Michael Chertoff – with images so vivid that it has been called the "pornoscanner".

Believe me: you don't want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. History shows that the use of forced nudity by a state that is descending into fascism is powerfully effective in controlling and subduing populations.

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness. Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American south, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the south, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/05/us-sexual-humiliation-political-control

[Winehole23]

The Washington Supreme Court has limited the ability of police to search someone's car after they've been taken into custody, further extending a long tradition of affording state residents more privacy protections than are guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


The ruling overturns the convictions of two men in unrelated cases who were stopped by police, after which officers found drugs during searches of their cars.


The justices, in an 8-1 vote on Thursday, held that police must obtain a warrant to search an arrested driver's car even if they believe it contains evidence of the crime for which the person was taken into custody.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017919643_carsearch06m.html

[boutons_deux]

need a warrant to search your car, but no warrant to search your rectum or vagina.

[Blake]

The car isn't going to jail

[boutons_deux]

99.9% of minor violators have nothing dangerous up their vaginas and rectums

[Blake]

Is it also unfair to search the rectum of an accused murderer before a conviction?

[boutons_deux]

Is it fair to treat a minor traffic, etc violator the same accused murderers?

[Blake]

Is it fair to treat a minor traffic, etc violator the same accused murderers?

I think fair is searching everyone going in or searching no one.

I lean towards strip searching no one, but I can understand the need for it.

[cherylsteele]

May all you right-wing assholes, your girlfriends, mothers, daughters be stripped search repeatedly.Of course the left-wingers read only what they want.
The first line in the article :
Washington-- The Supreme Court refused Monday to limit strip searches of new jail inmates, even those arrested for minor traffic offenses.

You are only subject to strip search if you are actually arrested or are in jail, if you are pulled over for a simple speeding ticket you don't get strip-searched, you just get a ticket unless officer arrests you for something legit.

[boutons_deux]

Of course the left-wingers read only what they want.
The first line in the article :
Washington-- The Supreme Court refused Monday to limit strip searches of new jail inmates, even those arrested for minor traffic offenses.

You are only subject to strip search if you are actually arrested or are in jail, if you are pulled over for a simple speeding ticket you don't get strip-searched, you just get a ticket unless officer arrests you for something legit.

Ah, I'm so relieved! :lol

If you are arrested, not charged, not convicted, just arrested, say good bye to your control of your vagina and rectum.

Of course the right-wingers spin the anti-Human-American right-wing activist extremism of their VRWC political hacks in SCOTUS.

[cherylsteele]

Ah, I'm so relieved! :lol

If you are arrested, not charged, not convicted, just arrested, say good bye to your control of your vagina and rectum.
Typical overreaction by you.
I personally don't have anything to worry about, never have done anything to get arrested. You sound like you are scared to get pulled over for a minor traffic violation ticket, the police won't do anything except give you a ticket.
I was pulled over for a minor traffic violation last week, got a ticket, and was on my way. No threat of a strip search or arrest, etc.

[boutons_deux]

not an overreacation, just stating facts.

And you, Miss Pollyanna, assume the new scope of police up your rectum and vagina will never be abused.

[TeyshaBlue]

boutons is all about the vagina and rectum today.:lol

[boutons_deux]

your valued, numerous contributions are always informative, GFY

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm a giver.