Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

[Caleb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us...ense.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — 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.

“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.

According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

Justice Kennedy responded that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.

[Slug1]

Hooah!

If you don't want to be strip searched... don't break the law in any way!

Should have been unanimous!

Now the law authorities have the RIGHT to not take chances and strip searching SHOULD be a requirement for any offense requiring jail time, even if it's nothing but holding for minor offenses.

This is untying the hands from behind the backs of law authorities so they can do their jobs and BE supported by the law when they do what IS NECESSARY to protect those who are law abiding.

[Caleb]

Hooah!

If you don't want to be strip searched... don't break the law in any way!

Should have been unanimous!

Now the law authorities have the RIGHT to not take chances and strip searching SHOULD be a requirement for any offense requiring jail time, even if it's nothing but holding for minor offenses.

This is untying the hands from behind the backs of law authorities so they can do their jobs and BE supported by the law when they do what IS NECESSARY to protect those who are law abiding.

What??

Even if they have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband etc….?

What of those who are wrongfully arrested?

[Clavicula_Nox]

Hooah!

If you don't want to be strip searched... don't break the law in any way!

Should have been unanimous!

Now the law authorities have the RIGHT to not take chances and strip searching SHOULD be a requirement for any offense requiring jail time, even if it's nothing but holding for minor offenses.

This is untying the hands from behind the backs of law authorities so they can do their jobs and BE supported by the law when they do what IS NECESSARY to protect those who are law abiding.

I have to disagree with this as strongly as I am able.

According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.

That is ridiculous.

Unless there is a reasonable suspicion of contraband, someone who has been arrested, and not convicted, should not be subjected to a strip search. I can bend on a conviction requiring imprisonment.

[Colight]

With 30,000 new laws on the books each year soon most any thing will be illegal.

I am going to design a line of Velcro "Quick off" clothes.

[tango]

Hooah!

If you don't want to be strip searched... don't break the law in any way!

Should have been unanimous!

Now the law authorities have the RIGHT to not take chances and strip searching SHOULD be a requirement for any offense requiring jail time, even if it's nothing but holding for minor offenses.

This is untying the hands from behind the backs of law authorities so they can do their jobs and BE supported by the law when they do what IS NECESSARY to protect those who are law abiding.

Are you serious? How exactly would strip-searching Timothy McVeigh for driving without a license plate have done anything to prevent his subsequent crimes? When the "law abiding" apparently need this level of "protection" from people who are dangerous enough to not use a turn signal or cycle without a bell something is badly wrong.

Sounds more like a voyeur's charter than anything useful. "Protect the law-abiding" is a fine-sounding mantra to hide behind but usually this kind of thing is anything but about protecting the law-abiding.

[Slug1]

I can understand all your sentiments.

One thing, the article don't make sense anyway... leash laws, driving without a license, failing to use a turn signal... those are not "JAIL TIME" offenses. The article is from the NY Times so no wonder the article don't make sense in that respect... if the writer don't like the law, the writer is gonna write it in a way that will lean many to favor their opinion and not to like it either. That is the NY Times' SOP and what they are known for.

So, does a person who ONLY does a crime requiring jail get strip searched (... before admitting them to jails ...)? Or does that person without a bell on their bike actually get strip searched and never would see any jail?

The article don't make sense in that regard. The article makes it sound like J-walking in NYC is gonna get a person strip searched and when nothing is found, told to go home now and go cry there. The wording at the beginning of the article says "before admitting them to jail". So which is it?

For an offense THAT requires jail time (read my post)... the law enforcement officials should HAVE the right to strip search them and BE supported by the law.

We can "what if" this to death and sure, every Timothy McVeigh got away in the past to do their acts of terrorism... but "if" in the future ONE single attack is prevented due to a "strip search" and 1000's of lives are saved... Hooah!

Also... did anyone read this in the article or just the stuff the OP posted which leans the NY Times opinion even more steep to an opinion that is... opinionated?

The federal appeals courts had been split on the question, though most of them prohibited strip-searches unless they were based on a reasonable suspicion that contraband was present. The Supreme Court did not say that strip-searches of every new arrestee were required; it ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches did not forbid them.

Daron Hall, the president of the American Correctional Association and sheriff of Davidson County, Tenn., said the association welcomed the flexibility offered by the decision. The association’s current standards discourage blanket strip-search policies.

Justice Kennedy said one person arrested for disorderly conduct in Washington State “managed to hide a lighter, tobacco, tattoo needles and other prohibited items in his rectal cavity.” Officials in San Francisco, he added, “have discovered contraband hidden in body cavities of people arrested for trespassing, public nuisance and shoplifting.”

[Reynolds357]

What??

Even if they have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband etc….?

What of those who are wrongfully arrested?

Get in the real world. It is a strip search, not a rape or a murder.

[Caleb]

I can understand all your sentiments.

One thing, the article don't make sense anyway... leash laws, driving without a license, failing to use a turn signal... those are not "JAIL TIME" offenses. The article is from the NY Times so no wonder the article don't make sense in that respect... if the writer don't like the law, the writer is gonna write it in a way that will lean many to favor their opinion and not to like it either. That is the NY Times' SOP and what they are known for.

So, does a person who ONLY does a crime requiring jail get strip searched (... before admitting them to jails ...)? Or does that person without a bell on their bike actually get strip searched and never would see any jail?

The article don't make sense in that regard. The article makes it sound like J-walking in NYC is gonna get a person strip searched and when nothing is found, told to go home now and go cry there. The wording at the beginning of the article says "before admitting them to jail". So which is it?

For an offense THAT requires jail time (read my post)... the law enforcement officials should HAVE the right to strip search them and BE supported by the law.

We can "what if" this to death and sure, every Timothy McVeigh got away in the past to do their acts of terrorism... but "if" in the future ONE single attack is prevented due to a "strip search" and 1000's of lives are saved... Hooah!

Also... did anyone read this in the article or just the stuff the OP posted which leans the NY Times opinion even more steep to an opinion that is... opinionated?

What about the person who has not committed a crime, but is wrongfully arrested as suspected of committing a crime?
It seems you would willingly have had Peter, John and Paul and others, subjected to the same humiliation.

(imho) this strip searching is oppressive, extreme intimidation and humiliation, and boarders on sexual abuse.

Your brain washed opinion on this matter appears to be ‘stuff all the innocent victims, we need to trample on them to allay our fears at any cost’
You are becoming prisoners of your fears, and that means the terrorists are winning the war.

[RockSolid]

Hooah!

If you don't want to be strip searched... don't break the law in any way!

Should have been unanimous!

Now the law authorities have the RIGHT to not take chances and strip searching SHOULD be a requirement for any offense requiring jail time, even if it's nothing but holding for minor offenses.

This is untying the hands from behind the backs of law authorities so they can do their jobs and BE supported by the law when they do what IS NECESSARY to protect those who are law abiding.

a9670105_Not-sure-if-serious.jpg .

[Reynolds357]

What about the person who has not committed a crime, but is wrongfully arrested as suspected of committing a crime?
It seems you would willingly have had Peter, John and Paul and others, subjected to the same humiliation.

(imho) this strip searching is oppressive, extreme intimidation and humiliation, and boarders on sexual abuse.

Your brain washed opinion on this matter appears to be ‘stuff all the innocent victims, we need to trample on them to allay our fears at any cost’
You are becoming prisoners of your fears, and that means the terrorists are winning the war.

When you work inside a jail or prison and see all the contraband that gets in, you might change your mind.
Trust me, I would rather be strip searched 100 times than spend one night in jail.

[Slug1]

What about the person who has not committed a crime, but is wrongfully arrested as suspected of committing a crime?

Man is fallen, mistakes are made. There is always collateral damage.

It seems you would willingly have had Peter, John and Paul and others, subjected to the same humiliation.

Well, since you went there with this statement...

Let's imagine what Peter, John, and Paul would do if you were standing infront of them complaining about this new federal law.

1) I'm sure they'd remind you of what God had them teach about submitting to the government. I would expect them to begin reminding you about that first.

2) According to the article, the strip search is to be observed while you are naked and no touching is allowed... then they may remind you of their persecution of being beaten and as we know, persecuted unto death (for some). They may even compare what they went through, compared to "just" being naked and observed.

3) To be strip searched isn't persecution... sure its embarrassing, humiliating, and if you want to push it... a violation. Violation of what... ?

4) Then they will remind you of what THEY did when they had their civil rights VIOLATED... they sat in prison and WORSHIPED AND PRAISED God. Not that you wouldn't worship and praise God in jail.... but seems to me, you'd do more complaining about your civil rights being violated.

(imho) this strip searching is oppressive, extreme intimidation and humiliation, and boarders on sexual abuse.

You are welcomed to have your opinion... am I allowed to have one also?

Your brain washed opinion on this matter appears to be ‘stuff all the innocent victims, we need to trample on them to allay our fears at any cost’
You are becoming prisoners of your fears, and that means the terrorists are winning the war.

Since my opinion is not yours... you have to attack my character with this statement?

The fruit of that statement tells more about your heart and the curses you just spoke... than it does about your voiced... opinion.

By the way... what is the purpose of exposing your heart through this attack upon my character by accusing me of being brain washed?

[tea]

I have to disagree with this as strongly as I am able.
That is ridiculous.
Unless there is a reasonable suspicion of contraband, someone who has been arrested, and not convicted, should not be subjected to a strip search. I can bend on a conviction requiring imprisonment.

Are you serious? How exactly would strip-searching Timothy McVeigh for driving without a license plate have done anything to prevent his subsequent crimes? When the "law abiding" apparently need this level of "protection" from people who are dangerous enough to not use a turn signal or cycle without a bell something is badly wrong.

Sounds more like a voyeur's charter than anything useful. "Protect the law-abiding" is a fine-sounding mantra to hide behind but usually this kind of thing is anything but about protecting the law-abiding.

I have to agree

[tea]

accusing me of being brain washed?

The best statement I've heard aboved being brain washed is; 'it was a dirty old brain in anyway.'

Try not take it too personaly Slug, but I think the strip search thing is heading straight toward a police state, and that's a tremendously sad thing.

[tea]

When you work inside a jail or prison and see all the contraband that gets in, you might change your mind.
Trust me, I would rather be strip searched 100 times than spend one night in jail.

This does not make strip search right!