Supreme Court Approves Strip Searches For Any Arrestable Offense 747
sl4shd0rk writes "Taking a page out of the TSA handbook, the Supreme Court has voted to allow strip searches for any offense, no matter how minimal. The article cites these two tidbits from Justice Anthony Kennedy: 'Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,' and 'Maintaining safety and order at detention centers requires the expertise of correctional officials.'"
Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
We have gone insane in the United States. Our constitution is consistantly being ignored, and our freedoms are dwindling. This is just one more example.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Insightful)
Bull shit. You're not going anywhere.
I left and it's easy to do (Score:5, Informative)
I left the US to work in Europe because I was very tired of the crappy politics, lack of a social system and erosion of personal rights. This story is perfect example. In certain countries (e.g. Denmark) you don't even need employment for a resident permit. All one needs is 100 points on the new system shown here:
http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/work/greencard-scheme/greencard-scheme.htm
A PhD from a reasonable university gives 95 points. Speaking English is worth 20 points. Being under 35 helps as well. As does being in a technical field (e.g. IT).
It's not so hard to leave, so quit calling bullshit on those that have/plan to.
Re:I left and it's easy to do (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not in Denmark.
I moved to Stockholm originally and if you're in a technical field, you could get a job without Swedish. Surprisingly (or maybe not) most technical terms are in English. In addition, any Swede in a reasonable sized area is fluent in English. However, you'd have to bring something to the table that would make you interesting. Also, there were several work places that I knew of that functioned solely in English (multinational corps ... AstraZeneca for example.)
Copenhagen should be similar and this points system looks quite easy compared to the standard visa system for an American. You do need to meet the financial requirements though, which looks to be about 1000€ in savings/month duration of the initial permit.
I'm now in Germany and while English is very wide-spread, the willingness to employ it is much lower, therefore basic German is necessary, but can be picked-up in 6 months or so. Conversely, native English speakers have high value here (I know a few that just got hired as technical writers (with PhD).
Re:I left and it's easy to do (Score:5, Insightful)
How easy was it to find work in Denmark without speaking Danish?
I'm seriously considering moving elsewhere in Europe. There's no legal obstacles for me, I'm British, so the only question is how easy it is to find a job.
(However, I do quite like the job & friends I have here at the moment.)
From what I've been reading lately, we're a lot more likely to encouter fascism in Europe than the US. Hungary is on the verge of enacting a completely fascist constitution. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/120329/eu-takes-on-extremism-can-it-win-echoes-hitler-pt-4 [globalpost.com] EU is having to battle fascist uprisings left and right. Some would argue the EU itself has fascist leanings, especially in light of its entirely unelected leadership. Do a lot of reading before you decide...that's pretty much what I'm doing. All those austerity measures being pressed is just business and government screwing the people there. The people are entirely against most of what's happening all over EU. So we move from here and have a real, more mature battle there. Might be better to just stay here and try to change things on the inside. Plus, what if all the thinking people do leave the US and it does become ultra right wing fascist? Then we've got the most powerful army in the world going (more) nuts all over. The current reality all over the world isn't real pretty. The only place to go is maybe someplace that doesn't matter and has few people.
The EU is having to battle fascist uprisings left and right?!?!?!?
Since when? You must be reading an American-centric paper, HQ'd in the US and written in English.
That article is laughable and sensationalist, at best. 7%, oh no!
Re:I left and it's easy to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I left and it's easy to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, are you uninformed! I work in Germany, for a corporation, and I also get 12 paid holidays, but unlike you I don't merely get a measly 4 weeks per year of paid vacation. I get 6, and from the first year I started working with at my company. I lived in the US for many years and so I know that hardly anyone who doesn't work for the government gets 4 weeks like you do. Here 6 weeks is quite common. I always pointed out a German saying to my American friends: "I don't live to work, I work to live." What's the point of making all that money if I have no time to enjoy it? I work to support housing, food, clothing etc. like everyone else, but beyond that I work so that I can support my hobbies and to spend time off with friends and family. American culture struck me as ass-backwards in that respect. People spending long hours at work. What's the point of life if that's how you have to live? Now, if you're close to starving I can understand doing that, but only if those hours are actually being paid, but otherwise I can't relate to that kind of mindset at all.
Re:I left and it's easy to do (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I left and it's easy to do (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, the Supreme Court ruling specifically said he was still allowed to proceed in court for the wrongful arrest. They did not challenge that part. Granted, the ruling was abysmally poor otherwise.
Re:I left and it's easy to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I left and it's easy to do (Score:5, Insightful)
The America you grew up in is the same as the one you live in now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings [wikipedia.org]
Among others... I'd appreciate it if we stopped romanticizing our history and recognize that the US has pretty much always relied on force to get what they want (including going to war to get away from the crown).
That is the reality of American history: Shoot our way into getting what we want.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, there are lots of us who are going somewhere. My wife and I have already decided that as soon as my daughter is done with school we're moving to Montenegro. Got a little house in Sutomore, and we'll spend our summers in Belgrade or over here. When the five cunts on the Supreme Court made George Bush president in 2000, I started working on an Italian passport, which I got thanks to my ancestry and I can keep my US citizenship thanks to Jure Sanguinis (who I think is an Italian dude who I paid off to fix the whole thing for me).
Like the words of the song, "I'm going to a place that has already been burned down, I'm so tired of you, America."
With US citizenship and EU citizenship, I'll be able to come and go as I please and if things go really south over here, my daughter can come live with us. When I retired at age 50, I had the max into Social Security, so since it's solvent for the next 30 years, I'll probably collect for at least 20 years (assuming we're able to keep the Republicans away from it).
It's not that I hate America. I love this place, warts and all. But the election of 2000 was the first big sign that I noticed, and the fact that lynching is legal again in Florida is just one more straw on the camel. Can you imagine? More than 20 states have passed these "Stand Your Ground & Shoot a Black Guy" laws already, and if the American Legislative Exchange Council has it's way, it'll be coming soon to a state near me. Fuck that. With my guinea olive skin I would hate some cracker to mistake me for a brother when I'm out on a cold morning doing tai chi in the park with my hoodie up and put a few shots in my back because seeing a potential black guy doing tai chi was just too threatening for him.
Oh jeez, look at the time. I'm sorry I ran my mouth like this.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that I hate America. I love this place, warts and all. But the election of 2000 was the first big sign that I noticed, and the fact that lynching is legal again in Florida is just one more straw on the camel. Can you imagine? More than 20 states have passed these "Stand Your Ground & Shoot a Black Guy" laws already, and if the American Legislative Exchange Council has it's way, it'll be coming soon to a state near me. Fuck that. With my guinea olive skin I would hate some cracker to mistake me for a brother when I'm out on a cold morning doing tai chi in the park with my hoodie up and put a few shots in my back because seeing a potential black guy doing tai chi was just too threatening for him.
Oh jeez, look at the time. I'm sorry I ran my mouth like this.
Could you elaborate or at give a searchable phrase for this? I'm not always up-to-date on US politics and this is the first time I hear about this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Informative)
That's GP's point, so far as I can see - "stand your ground" laws are perfectly reasonable as they are, and Trayvon's case is not an indication that something's wrong with them; rather, it's a failure of the authorities to administer justice in that particular case that is the problem. Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby has picked up the story as a means to repeal the laws...
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Interesting)
SYG laws do not give you a right to randomly shoot people, regardless of their racial background; and you can't claim that you "felt threatened" and get off solely on the basis on that, contrary to what anti-gun propagandists have been saying. In Zimmerman's case, the problem is that the authorities are unwilling to enforce the law as written, and using their misinterpretation for it to cover up their desire to not prosecute (though that seems to have changed due to public criticism).
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Insightful)
"I'm sorry I ran my mouth like this."
God sends little children to hell for lying, Ratzo. ;)
Everywhere has problems. And, you've been around long enough to see how the laws in the US have swung back and forth over time. We're in a pretty strong shift toward letting the police have free reign. But, like many shifts, the really far out stuff usually happens when the pendulum is about to swing back.
I'm hardly giving up and heading out. If everyone with "clue" leaves, then don't be surprised when clueless things happen.
YMMV, and if you figure that moving to another place is a good move for you, great. You've got the financial situation you can do it.
Besides, I'm sure you can find something to be grouchy and outraged about anywhere you go. ;)
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a question of priorities, not bravery. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that I hate America. I love this place, warts and all.
I'm sorry but what you feel is not love. People fight to save/protect the things they love. They don't run from them at the first sign of trouble - Coward.
Thing is, I suspect that PopeRatzo (among others) loves himself, his family, and his freedoms more than the abstract notion of "nation", especially when that nation is changing for the worse, relatively rapidly and in long-term ways that will be hard to change back.
It's not a question of courage. It's a question of smarts -- should I stay and try to turn a tide of stupidity that could very well cost me my life (at least figuratively), or should I arrange for my loved ones and myself to have a place of safety and greater relative freedom somewhere else? And, mark you, this particular SCOTUS ruling isn't the first sign of trouble; there are signs all over that things aren't going quite right.
Sometimes it's just smarter to get out of the way of an avalanche.
Now, if you want to argue about whether the changes in the US constitute an avalanche, that's all well and good. But that's not what you're doing. Calling someone chicken for doing what looks to me like simple self-preservation and seeking that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that Americans love to talk about, that's just dumb. I sure don't think my great-great grandad was a chicken for leaving Germany and coming to the US. He did the smart thing, as clearly evidenced by the course of history for the next 50-odd years after he left, bringing his family with him. (And yes, that branch of my family would have vanished had they stayed.)
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sorry but what you feel is not love. People fight to save/protect the things they love. They don't run from them at the first sign of trouble - Coward.
I love my husband, but he beats me.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Informative)
If you've got any kind of advanced degree, I'm pretty sure we can put you to use. Engineers especially are highly sought after in Norway these days - as are IT people.
Just apply for a few jobs and within a few months you'll have a work visa on our "specialist import quota".
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Funny)
What makes you think Canada is any better? They don't even have free speech.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad thing when countries that don't have laws written down heed them more than countries that have them in writing...
Re:Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada (Score:4, Informative)
In response to both your comment and the one above you. Canada does have written laws and a Constitution. We do have rights of Free Expression, although they differ from those in the US which are far more absolute. Our system is workable IMHO, if applied.
Of course the Government and the courts may not be applying it evenly and correctly, but that is what elections and the courts are for in the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada [wikipedia.org]
If you are thinking of countries that don't have their entire legal system written down, I expect you mean Great Britain - and I am no longer certain that is true.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony there is our watered down free speech laws (freedom of expression) are probably going to provide more freedom than will realistically be available in the US (despite your 1'st amendment) fairly soon.
Just to offer my commentary on US vs Canada law. The US is all about absolutes. You (supposedly) have a set of absolute, undeniable rights. In Canada, it's about balance and compromise. I have a right to express my opinions, but people have a right not to be harassed with hate speech. The theoretical implications of the Canadian approach seem worse than the US approach, however I think in the practical world they work out much better.
Further, I think the differences make sense when you look at our countries history. Down in the US, you folks had a huge war to get your independence .. lots of inspiring speeches and acts of heroism and such. You _won_ your absolute independence and are adamant about protecting it.
Here in Canada, we hashed out our independence in a series of meetings with the British. It was a compromise solution invloving a gradual transition where we would get a constitution and all the things that really matter for the day to day running of a country, and the British would still maintain a largely symbolic involvement in our politics.
An American would of course freak out at this. Total independence or death and such but it works for us.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Insightful)
The theoretical implications of the Canadian approach seem worse than the US approach, however I think in the practical world they work out much better.
Right up until you piss off the $cientologists, or the Mormons, or the Muslims, by saying something about their "prophet" that they interpret as derogatory (which you may well have intended as same) and they start to sue and harass you in court for "hate speech."
Meanwhile, the idea of being strip-searched before being put into prison seems to be an unfortunate side effect of the way we run prisons. If you haven't heard, smuggling items into prisons is pretty fucking big business. [statesman.com] And they get downright creative [oddee.com] about it. So if you're running a prison, then yes, you turn out to have a vested security interest in strip-searching anyone who comes in, whether they're there doing 10-to-20 or they're in for a short stint on failure to pay traffic tickets.
It sucks, and it's humiliating for those who are strip searched due to minor crimes or worse yet, court system fuck-ups (which is part of what this case had going for it to make a sympathetic plaintiff) but the alternative is the crime and drug gangs just having a few guys whose job it is to get arrested for running enough stoplights to smuggle stuff in to the leaders on a 30-day pass and pass messages back and forth from the outside too.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Funny)
If you haven't heard, smuggling items into prisons is pretty fucking big business. [statesman.com] And they get downright creative [oddee.com] about it.
The statesman article is about convicts in prison, not about suspects in jail - big difference.
Also, so what if you have have stuff in jail? Designating harmless things as contrabrand and then declaring a problem does not wash. A deadly weapon, yes, but then who is going to jaywalk with a revolver up his ass?
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Informative)
>>Right up until you piss off the $cientologists, or the Mormons, or the Muslims, by saying something about their "prophet" that they interpret as derogatory (which you may well have intended as same) and they start to sue and harass you in court for "hate speech."
Please cite for us a single case where the Mormon Church has sued anyone in court for hate speech directed at them.
As a Mormon, I can tell you that the official Church policy to dealing with anti-Mormon hate speech is to ignore it. Haters have been spouting their vitriol at us for 200 years and haven't had an original insult to throw at us for 199 years. They're inevitably forgotten, while the Church just keeps doing its thing. There's just no point in getting into an argument with such people.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
The Church also strongly believes in freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion, if thats what "floats your boat".
That didn't stop you from forcing your religion on homosexual couples in California.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody forced anything on anyone. The mormons followed the legal, established process for prop 8.
In what world do you live in where passing a law doesn't equate to the use of force?
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you seriously trying to argue that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote because it isn't fair for the non-religous people?
No, I'm suggesting that we call it what it is. If you vote to force your religion on people that is what you are doing. Deal with it.
Are you suggesting that no Mormons are homosexual? Or are you suggesting that no Mormons voted against prop8? I assure you that if you are both suggestions are false.
How did you infer either of those from what I said? Neither follow.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Insightful)
Well said. The implications are for those entering a prison population. They are balancing the protection and safety of the prison population and guards against personal privacy. The needs of the many, in this case, outweigh the needs of the few ... Or the one....to paraphrase a line from an old Star Trek movie.
The need to strip search is for a arrstable offense resulting in detention in a prison facility. If you find yourself going to prison, you will be subjected to the search. Don't like it? Well, don't break the law.
Now, the bigger issue is whether he has a case for false arrest against the State for not updating the records properly. Keep in mind, this wasn't the first time he was arrested on this bench warrant. The police officer can not make the call at the time of arrest - that is beyond their power. And, a paper isn't going to protect him. He should be entitled for compensation because of the arrest. If the penalty against the State is great enough, they may elect to aim prove the process and provide a means to electronically verify the status of a warrant.
I worked on such a system for a county in PA. The validly of the warrant, assume it was entered properly, could be verified in seconds. Unfortunately, not all counties share their warrant data. In this case, it was a State Trooper who performed the arrest. Consequently, the officer was not affiliated with the county issuing the warrant.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
The need to strip search is for a arrstable offense resulting in detention in a prison facility. If you find yourself going to prison, you will be subjected to the search. Don't like it? Well, don't break the law.
This isn't about prison (which is for convicted criminals), this is jail, which you can go to merely for being suspected of a crime. You don't have to actually break the law. You usually don't even get to see a judge or your lawyer first. Forty years ago this is something we would've accused the Soviets of and criticized them for it while saying that America is better than that. Now we'll get people doublethinking that it's freedom.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Informative)
While the rest of your post rings true...
Right up until you piss off the... Mormons... by saying something about their "prophet" that they interpret as derogatory (which you may well have intended as same) and they start to sue and harass you in court for "hate speech."
I can't speak for $cientologists or Muslims, but I am LDS - and I call BS on your accusation that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - or individual members of the church - is suing anyone for "hate speech".
Can you cite an actual lawsuit (that doesn't involve what most non-Mormon Slashdot readers would say is real hate speech, and is just a form of tyrannical suppression of the freedom of expression)?
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Interesting)
Not hate speech, but copyright, and used to silence critics with lawsuits; http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19991016&id=C-g0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=NyEGAAAAIBAJ&pg=4294,5523199 [google.com]
Nothing against Mormons personally, and a primarily academic interest in copyright and the church. It just happened to be in my list of reading material.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Interesting)
In your country it's been abuses by the Muslim groups - for instance, claiming anyone opposed to legalizing polygamy is engaging in "hate speech against the Koran."
See Also [wikipedia.org]...
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Insightful)
I do agree with this, and like many Canadians, am thoroughly pissed off about it. The party in power up here also happens to be the worst for this. It's interesting, people joke about Canada being under British control, but the US influences our politics in an actual tangible manner.
At the very least, US big media is pulling some serious strings up here.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Informative)
Or a real right to bear arms.
Anyone in Canada who has a need for a gun, can have a gun. Most people who want a gun can have one too.
We're just a teensy bit fussier on who and where we hand out the guns. And in exchange, we get shot at a lot less.
Different perspective (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Different perspective (Score:5, Funny)
Careful what you wish for.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
So many people here in the US have that "it doesn't affect me" mindset. It sometimes has me wishing it did affect them so we could get some real action on some things.
Re: (Score:3)
These distractions, and the careful management of the destruction of the American middle cla
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
How much has your life changed in the last ten to fifteen years? Is it better or worse? Mine is better. Much, much better.
TSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, free speech zones...
And you seem to be speaking in a way that indicates that you only care about yourself. Guess what? I care if anyone's freedom is violated, even if my own life is better!
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
How about instead of fleeing, you contribute?
If you'd rather be 'noble' and stay with the sinking ship, that's your business, but don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us by making it seem that regular Joe Schmoes can do a fucking thing to change shit right now, because that's pretty obviously untrue.
We're getting ready to head into a presidential election where the "left" is actually center and the "right" is actually "holy fucking shit I didn't know the scale went this far". Unless you're one of those sick fucking people that worship the dollar, cheer on the death of the uninsured, and/or pray to God for the death of all the gays, the United States is quickly becoming quite inhospitable. I know people that have been spit on here in Wisconsin...why? Because they're in a fucking union. That's all it takes for someone to hate your guts these days...and God Forbid you signed a recall petition against our current Governor Scott Walker, because the witch hunts are in full fucking effect, up here. To quote one particular comment on an article I read a while back (reporting the fact that the recall signatures were going to be made public in a searchable database, what a great fucking idea that was) "Now all of us employers and landlords will be able to see who the parasites are." We have to fight tooth and nail to find out who is donating to campaigns here in this state, we don't know where half of the legislation that gets voted on in our legislature originates, but dammit, we need to make sure those signatures go public so everyone can find out where we live and harass us over it [dailykos.com].
How much more money should us 'little people' take out of our dwindling bank accounts to throw at this corrupt two-party system? How many hours volunteering and being involved politically should we tack on to our 80-hour work week? How long do we keep pretending that there's still something salvageable here?
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Informative)
We're getting ready to head into a presidential election where the "left" is actually center and the "right" is actually "holy fucking shit I didn't know the scale went this far".
Best political analysis ever.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but some do. Cheering on the death of the uninsured was well demonstrated in the GOP debate (link [youtube.com]). Are they all exceptions? Not likely.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
For every person actively cheering this shit on, there are 10 people sitting there watching them do it and not saying a fucking word.
Look at how much power the ultra-religious whackjobs wield in the modern-day GOP right now. They're busily working on rolling back abortion, worker's rights, sex-ed, and the moderate conservatives are just sitting there happily going along, too afraid of the evangelicals to dare standing against them. Shit is fucked up at almost level of government in this country, even down to the municipal level [wikipedia.org], and our legislators are more worried about making sure that a woman has to go through "counseling" to make sure she wasn't "coerced" into getting an abortion. Planned Parenthood offices are now getting firebombed right here in Wisconsin [wausaudailyherald.com]. Where are all the moderate Republicans going on record decrying this shit? Where are all the moderates saying "Hey, crazy religious nuts, knock it the fuck off!"
Few and far between. Better to tacitly support this idiocy and "beat that 'Muslim' Barack HUSSEIN Obama!!" than to have the courage to actually call out the fucking crazies, right? Why the hell else is someone like Rick Santorum even still in the race? The guy thinks women should be grateful for a pregnancy, even if it is the result of a rape. [guardian.co.uk] Where is all the outrage on the right for that bullshit? In the right-wing media? Yeah, nowhere, because again, better to stand united with the crazies than be branded a "soshulist" or "librul" , God Forbid, a "Dumbocrat"...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Insightful)
Rights aren't there to protect the well-off - they're there to ensure liberty for the oppressed.
Re: (Score:3)
Well it doesn't affect you until it suddenly does and by then it is to late.
The US is now much more dangerous and crazy than any other country in the world. The US puts people in prisons and tortures them without any trials they can also assassinate any citizen anywhere without a trial or jury. The military is being privatized to handle any questionable murders. Private financial corporations take orders from the US government on who they can do business with. I could go on and on...
Don't you see it? The US
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's not the case at all. Jail is not prison. If you're arrested for any reason, you end up in jail until you get bailed out. It doesn't matter how frivolous the charges are.
Essentially this ruling means that any police officer can take you and have you strip searched for any reason whatsoever (let's say you're arrested for resisting arrest) and you have no recourse. That's the country we live in today.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
> Essentially this ruling means that any police officer can take you and have you strip searched for any reason whatsoever (let's say
> you're arrested for resisting arrest) and you have no recourse. That's the country we live in today.
So, you're totally okay with being arrested and being thrown into a cage with other people (quite likely to be criminals) for any reason whatsoever, but having to take off your pants is crossing the line? In the story the guy was wrongfully jailed for a _week_ but the issue presented wasn't that, but that he was strip searched. Is it just me that thinks being lock up is vastly worse than having to strip? And that if you are going to put a bunch of people in a cage together that searching them first isn't a bad idea? (And to further that point, if you were wrongfully imprisoned with Mr. McStabby as a cellmate, wouldn't you prefer if he were searched?)
Let's call a spade a spade: the issue isn't the search, it's the bad laws surrounding them. The search makes sense for when you're locking up a bunch of people together (note that the decision applies to people entering the general population). The bad laws continue to not.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're totally okay with being arrested and being thrown into a cage with other people (quite likely to be criminals) for any reason whatsoever
No, no I'm not. Locking people into cages is barbaric, and the fact that we do this to innocent people before they've had a single day in court is doubly barbaric. Triply barbaric is the fact that they have no recourse against their aggressor once they've been found innocent.
Legalized Sexual Assault (Score:5, Insightful)
any police officer can take you and have you strip searched for any reason whatsoever (let's say you're arrested for resisting arrest)
Actually resisting arrest is a relatively serious crime. The guy in the case was arrested because someone else driving his car had previously gotten a traffic ticket. The ticket had been paid and the man had a letter from the court stating that it had been paid. So he was arrested for the crime of being a citizen in good standing with the law. Then he was strip searched twice once while with several other prisoners. Both occasions involved the visual inspection of his genitals and anus.
So the Supreme Court ruled that it is perfectly reasonable to arrest someone for absolutely no reason hold her for a few days and repeatedly sexually humiliate her. I use the pronoun "her" in this case to get you thinking about how you would feel if it were your wife or daughter though it should bother you just as much if it were your son. Imagine that your 19 year old daughter had gotten a speeding ticket, paid it a bit late, but paid it in full, and was carrying proof, was then forcibly taken into custody for a few days and required to spread her legs and hold open her vagina while an officer shined a flashlight inside while several others stood around, then repeat for her anus; and again before going to court where the judge orders her released on her own recognizance. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in favor of.
I will say this now. Cops will abuse this (hell they have doing this for years only then sometimes they would get sued). If they don't like you they are now allowed to sexually assault you repeatedly. This ruling was vague enough that cops will probably push the boundaries (they always do) and begin using penetrating cavity searches.
I hope it happens to each of these justices kids and grandkids.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Interesting)
Still sound reasonable?
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:4, Informative)
Or (according to the facts of the case that brought us this ruling), you are arrested for failing to pay a fine which you had already paid, even though you had proof of that payment, and showed it to the officer *before* you were arrested. In that case, you'll be arrested, kept in a cell for upwards of a week, and strip-searched *TWICE*.
Re:Canada Here I Come (Score:5, Insightful)
So you had someone who was obeying the law, had documentation saying they were obeying the law, and even if the documentation was incorrect his crime was an unpaid ticket.... yet resulted in the type of personal invasion that one would expect violent criminals to receive.
Part of the problem is that right now there is an economic incentive to get as many people into the general prisions as possible (since they are privately run, and usually have kickbacks to the public workers at some level) so people are getting the 'full' treatment that the general population would not expect or believe is appropriate. I don't know about you, but in my mind 'overdue parking ticket that was taken care of' should not automatically result in 'stripped naked multiple times in front of people and have fingers shoved up my ass then 6 days in a mass prison'. Even if I did forget to pay a fine, I would not expect such a result until I at least went in front of a judge and was warned that if I didn't pay up I might go to jail. Usually they just slap a penalty on the charge.
Re: (Score:3)
Ignorance abounds.
Go read the actual article.
Guy paid fine, payment wasn't recorded, warrant was issued, wife was pulled over with him in the car, warrant turned up, show payment proof to cop, cop arrested him, put in jail (NOT prison) for the weekend, strip searched twice before being released after payment/warrant were cleared up.
Now imagine if someone in law enforcement took a dislike to you.
Re: (Score:3)
"(Non-Convicted)"
Now here's a problem to think about. I'm being held with the general jailed population for doing over a hundred on the highway. I'm not a violent offender. Maybe I should not be strip searched.
However, the guy in the bunk next to mine has been arrested for armed robbery with assault and battery. Should he be strip searched?
Neither of us are convicted. We are presumed innocent. On what legal basis do you want him strip searched and not me?
And, even if you mandate seperate facilities/areas fo
On the positive side... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:On the positive side... (Score:5, Funny)
(insert gay voice)
Oh officer, I've been a bad boy, you gotta strip search me...
I would rather have that than contraband (Score:5, Interesting)
I generally am pretty pro-civil rights, but if I were going into a jail or prison I would probably rather have someone strip search me than to get shanked later by some psycho who snuck in a knife. And it's also a pretty shitty message to send to guards to say "A minor issue of prisoner privacy is more important to us than your safety."
Maybe you can make the "slippery slope" argument on this, but some sort of strip search on prison admission is hardly a new issue. They've been doing it for decades now.
Re:I would rather have that than contraband (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I would rather have that than contraband (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in socialist Continental Europe where a friend of mine was arrested after beating the stuffing out of someone who refused to leave his house. The police took him to the station, offered him coffee, and politely interviewed him. He then spend the weekend in jail, where he had regular smoke breaks, cable TV, and three squares. No strip searches, pepper spray, zip ties, or mancho police BS. Can you guess how often people are stabbed in jail here? Or how often guards are attacked?
This argument that having someone fondle your ballsack is for your own protection is exactly the kind of nonsensical, fear-based thinking that allowed a whole country to blithely accept penning protesters in "free speech zones," indefinite detentions without evidence or trial, and submitting to having naked photos taken in order to board an airplane. Police are supposed to protect the peace--they are public servants--and in many parts of the world, they reciprocate respect, instead of demanding it through dehumanizing displays of power.
This case has nothing to do with protecting guards, or keeping people from running with scissors in a jail cell--that is what eyeballs, ears, and cameras are for. What the SCOTUS said was that your fourth amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure ends when a police officer decides to arrest you. The guy in TFA was arrested because the cop thought that he hadn't paid a fine--despite having documentation that stated otherwise. He was then strip searched not once, but twice, before spending a week in jail. For allegedly not paying a fine. That he had in fact paid.
This decision is a further erosion of the Bill of Rights, plain and simple. The government needs a court order to obtain a search warrant before entering your house, but can enter your anus for loitering--or damn near anything because a copy can always find an excuse to arrest someone. Worse, it has a chilling effect, because now protestors know that, after being pepper-sprayed and zip-tied, they will be strip-searched multiple times.
Let's see what the amendement says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The SCOTUS has decreed that the whim of a single police officer, for any reason he or she deems worthy of arresting you, rises to the level of probable cause sufficient to violate the security of your person against unreasonable searches--unless your consider peeking inside someone's vagina or under their penis for participating in a peaceful protest reasonable. And, as anyone from a small town can attest to, cops can find any excuse to arrest you at any time, and face zero repercussions for flagrantly abusing that power; they don't even have to charge you with a crime. Slippery slope? Try free-fall.
Humor me for a second. Imagine a cop in a foul mood and who needs to fill quotas for traffic tickets, so he's pulling people over for just about anything. Now imagine that your wife is driving you home and she is pulled over by this cop. He runs her license, and asks for your ID--which you're not obliged to provide, but you don't want to start any trouble. He runs your ID and finds out that you have an unpaid parking ticket and that there is a warrant out for your arrest. Fortunately you have a receipt showing that you paid the fine, but the cop isn't buying it because the computer says otherwise. And you're black, so that probably isn't helping. The next thing you know, you're naked in a room full of strangers, spreading your ass cheeks apart while a stranger with a badge takes a good long look at your taint. Now imagine that this happens a second time, because they decide to move you from one jail to another during the entire week that you spend in jail. You're already in custody, but hey, "they've been doing it for decades now," and it's better safe than sorry.
Re:I would rather have that than contraband (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it's fair to compare a moment of slight humiliation at being strip searched to the very real risk of an inmate attacking a guard with a smuggled weapon.
Occupy rule (Score:5, Insightful)
'Every detainee ... may be required to undergo a close visual inspection
That means the cops don't have any responsibility to find every weapon, but they can search you if they want to. If you get shived in lockup, that's your own bad luck.
Re:Occupy rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because beating you, pepper spraying you, zip tieing you so tight your hands turn blue, then beating you some more isn't enough. Now they can give you a full cavity search as well.
All for exercising your first amendments rights.
Way to go America. Land of the .... free?
Inaccurate summary/title (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Inaccurate summary/title (Score:4, Insightful)
You're dead wrong.
"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&ref=politics [nytimes.com]
Also, jails are where innocent, yet charged, people go. Prisons are where convicted people go.
Not part of the punishment. (Score:3)
The strip search isn't part of the punishment, folks. The guy running the jail, and the strip search, doesn't give a rat's backside if you've been convicted or not. What he wants to do is make sure you're not bringing contraband into the prison population. It's a security measure for the jail. Otherwise, it becomes a pretty easy method of getting all kinds of unpleasant things into the jail. I don't have to stretch my imagination too far to see how to get weapons in, and smuggling drugs wouldn't be too hard either.
Remember this on election day (Score:3, Informative)
There is no fast way to fix the Supreme court. The "justices" are nominated by the president and confirmed by Congress/Senate. The only way to fix the supreme court is to consistently vote and vote "not Republican". The Republican will never place anyone on the Supreme court who isn't predisposed to supporting Big Business, Big Brother and Big Religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Scalia is 76 and quite portly
Kennedy is 76
Thomas is 64
Alito is 62
Roberts is 56
4th amendment (Score:3)
This is just a blank check for cops to arrest people and use this ruling as a back door to do an end run around the 4th amendment by letting the jail do the search for them.
Before:
1. Cop gets warrant
2. Search happens
3. Contraband found
4. Cop makes arrest
Now:
1. Cop makes bullshit arrest
2. Prison does a strip search
3. Contraband found
4. Subject gets busted for contraband
So if the cops want to search you, now all they have to do is just slap the cuffs on you and boot you behind bars and let the prison filter out as contraband whatever it is they didn't want to get a warrant for out on the streets.
Penn State's "kids for money" program... (Score:4, Insightful)
What about Juvenile Detention facilities?
PA had an issue where the detention facility was paying a judge to convict kids because the facility charged the state per kid, so, more kids == more profit.
In NYC alone in 2011, we had 50,000 arrested for smoking a joint, and every one of those arrests is a potential strip search.
There's an abuse of power already in progress, and we just gave them the ability to strip us literally, as well as strip us of our rights. 4th Amendment, anyone?
May all 9 Justices be arrested.... (Score:3)
.... and be subject to a full cavity search. I can seen then how quickly they would reverse that decision.
It's indecent and disgusting. I understand their reasoning, but when it's and all or nothing decision, and not one of common sense, it's simply wrong.
Context is important (Score:3, Informative)
Intimidation (Score:4, Interesting)
So how long before we start to see roadside strip searches of Occupy protestors? And just last week we were criticizing Egypt for their "virginity testing", which in practical terms, is almost the same procedure as a cavity search in the US.
Major error in summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
This has nothing to do with being convicted of a crime, this could be somebody brought to jail for speeding. The funny part is the feds and many states already ban this practice the could just said it's allowable. States are still free to ban the practice.
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
I got thrown in Jail in New Orleans for making an "illegal left hand turn between 12 and 4 PM". I was a bit earlier than normal on my driving route, my GF was griping on me, and I didn't notice.
Yes, I was as polite as can be to the cop who pulled me over. No, I had no other charges or warrants or anything. I had an out-of-state license, and that was enough.
So have fun with your police strip search next time your SO distracts you in traffic at the wrong time.
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA:
Again displaying their infinite law-and-order wisdom, the US Supreme Court has ruled that anyone arrested for any offense, however innocuous, can be strip-searched, even if there's no suspicion that they are concealing contraband.
He wasn't convicted.
Florence ... was arrested when his wife was pulled over for speeding (he was a passenger, and his son was in the back seat), and a check of his record showed an unpaid fine for an earlier offense. That record-check was wrong – the fine had been paid – but Florence spent a week in jail anyway, where he underwent the two strip searches.
He didn't commit any crime.
The ABA also notes that Albert Florence, who brought the original suit, was stripped-searched twice, once in private when "the supervising officer inspected Mr. Florence's mouth, tongue, armpits, buttocks, and genitals," and a second time when "he was forced to strip off his clothes in a shower area with a group of four other prisoners, all of whom were required to open their mouths, lift their genitals, and 'squat and cough' in plain sight of one another."
He was publicly humiliated.
Stop apologizing for the complete and total gutting of our rights.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if the cops only arrested him to get him strip searched at the prison and spare themselves the hassle of getting a search warrant.
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure what people have against someone who, remember, has already been convicted of a crime, to have to endure special screening before incarceration.
Arrest != conviction. The man in question was wrongfully arrested (for a fine that he had already paid). On the radio this morning they were also talking about strip searches for offenses such as riding a bike without an audible bell and walking a dog without a leash.
The worst thing about this ruling is that it provides police with yet another way to silence people who are inconvenient. Protesters, people who record video of police brutality, and anyone else are now at risk of punitive strip searches. The only sliver of hope in this ruling is that it doesn't overturn existing laws that prohibit strip searches in minor cases. We'll just have to see if legislators try to dismantle those in the next wave of "tough on crime" election year bullshit.
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
america has become a land of SEX PERVERTS.
let me correct that, if you are in a position of 'authority', your next role is to fight to have the right to strip search people and humiliate them.
yes, its about humiliation and not torture. a 'graceful' way to scare people into submission without all the bad aftertaste (so to speak).
tsa fondles and gropes passengers and now we give the sociopaths in blue the ability to scare you into submission by threat of this new tactic.
I guess spraying and volting you was not enough to control the population; we needed MORE tools to subdue the populace?
it sure does seem that this has a bit of the 'occupy' people in mind. lets scare the protesters so much that they'll think twice about showing their dissatisfaction at public gatherings.
piece by piece, we disassemble the laws and cultural norms that made this country GREAT. a once great nation, falling, before our very eyes. this is not hyperbole, either; its not even a slow cook of the frog. we're throwing the frog into boiling water and no one seems to really object but the powerless 'citizens'. and our voice has no representation anymore. the surpremes work for someone else, now, it appears ;(
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
Not convicted, arrested. First, the bar is *a lot* lower to arrest someone than to convict them. Innocent people get arrested all the time. This also not only for prison, it's for jail. Jail is "I got drunk and maybe a little stupid so they tossed me in here overnight", jail is "I went to this protest, and the cops decided to take a few of us in", jail is "They don't even have enough to charge me, but they can hold me here for 24 hours". A significant percentage of people who go to jails in a large city never even get *charged* with anything, let alone convicted. I know guys who've spent a night or two in jail here or there who have security clearances. Given the number of years I lived in New Orleans, and the number of mildly stupid things I've done int eh French Quarter after a long nigh, I count myself pretty lucky not to spent a night or two there myself.
Re:This seems terrifying (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no.
By itself, Jaywalking isn't an arrestable offense.
But let's say you didn't pay a parking ticket, so a warrant was issued for your arrest. Or let's go further and say you did pay the ticket, but they forgot to cancel the warrant, or let's say that your name is the same as someone else who has a warrant. Then it's get naked!
Or let's say you're protesting the horrible treatment of the 99% and the police decide to single you out to be beaten, pepper sprayed, beaten some more, zip-tied so tight that your hands turn blue and you suffer permanent nerve damage, and then they beat you some more, and then take you to jail and strip you naked.
Re:This seems terrifying (Score:5, Informative)
In 2006 the concept of arrestable vs. non-arrestable offenses was abolished in the USA. They are now grouped as "indictable" and "summary" offenses. If you are caught performing a summary offense (like jaywalking, or any traffic violation), the officer has the option of issuing a citation immediately, or arresting you, strip searching you, holding you in jail for up to 48 hours, then bringing you before a judge and having the judge write you a citation. At this point they can either continue to hold you until you pay the fine, or release you if the judge trusts you to pay up.
Re:This seems terrifying (Score:5, Funny)
You can't be arrested for jaywalking (and thus no strip search), but all attractive people will now also be charged with resisting arrest.
Re:This seems terrifying (Score:5, Informative)
This case was about a man who was suspected of having unpaid fines. He had, in fact, already paid the fines and had the documentation to prove it with him at the time of his arrest.
Re:This seems terrifying (Score:5, Informative)
It's even worse than that.
Not only had he paid the fine, and not only did he show the officer a sealed letter from the state saying he had paid it, but having an unpaid fine is not an arrestable offense (in New Jersey, where this all happened)
Re:This seems terrifying (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to me there's no such thing as a "not arrestable offense" anymore.
Simply requesting a complaint form at your local police station can result in an arrest these days [youtube.com], as fucked up and horrifying that is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This seems terrifying (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, if you are standing around doing nothing a police officer can come up and say ' you are under arrest' and bring you in... they can then not charge you with anything which means you can go. If you say 'I am not doing anything, what am I being arrested for' you can then be arrested for resisting arrest and even though there is no original charge you can be charged for the resistance, which pretty much comes down to 'didn't show officer respect they felt they deserved'.
It is because of patterns like this that the police in the US are generally best avoided unless you are the one who called them. Too unpredictable, too many ways around the laws, and too many people willing to protect them against non-police.
Re:Slashdot, 18 hrs behind the NY Times (Score:4, Funny)
I'm already done being mad about this. Since you're basically being strip searched now when you board a plane, take a train, drive your car, get arrested for smoking a joint, yadda, yadda, I propose we just stop wearing clothes.
I mean the TSA, cops, school principals, ticket wardens, etc. are gonna remove 'em anyway, you might as well just stay naked.
And for all you RTFA dopes who are going to reply to this saying "this is only for people being released into the general prision population, I say 'BULLSHIT'.
There's a story right below this one about cell-phone tracking without a warrant. Don't believe for a second this ruling won't be used to abuse rights by those in power, or those that THINK they have power because they have guns and handcuffs, or they are backed up by some "board".
Hell, potential employers want your facebook password, maybe pretty soon you'll be strip searched before you can go to work.
Time to leave this country. In Florida, it's legal to provoke someone to threaten you and then you shoot them, it's now legal to strip search anyone for any reason, and our government is controlled and run by Goldman Sachs, for Goldman Sachs. Screw this.
Sounds like you may still be mad about this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
FTFA:
After all, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent to the majority ruling, additional amicus curiae briefs revealed that strip searches have been inflicted upon citizens collared for driving with a noisy muffler or a busted headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell – even for violating a dog-leash law.
Breyer also wrote of "a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years, who was arrested for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration," who was strip-searched.
Do those seem like crimes for which one should be additionally punished by a strip search? Of course the real question is why would someone not convicted of any crime, and only accused of minor offenses, put into GP in a prison? IANAP so I'm not very familiar with prisons.