Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

[Caleb]

Way to bring up something that doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.

I've never had anyone out to get me and if you have indeed worked as a corrections officer then you know that the smallest thing can set someone off and that some people just literally don't care. Heck, they could just be in a bad mood because their girlfriend didn't come to visit them that day so they want to hurt someone and for some off the wall reason they pick -You-

I've never been innocent when I got put in. I deserved it every time. I've seen the truly innocent in there and they become prey. Once again, if you worked there then you know this.

Yes, but again, no amount of strip searching will prevent that happening.

[Slug1]

If character assassination is how you chose to want to see it then fine. Just sorry that that is how you chose to see it.

As I stated to Tea, I don't take what you said personal... I do however want you to see who your careless words can be taken. Based on your answer here, you are not aware. I will not assume the reason you make such statements against a person's character is because you truly mean your words, as hurtful. As I said... if the comments were to anyone in this thread, I'd still call you on it. I'm not doing this because it was me.

The point is this... your words are not fruitful and your term "character assassination" is a great term because such words are "curses" off your tongue and what comes off the tongue can both bless and curse. Those words are curses and they are assassinating the character of ANYONE you direct such words at.

I just want you to know that because such words can only come from the heart of a person and thus... the fruit of such words, reveals what is in the heart of a person.

I'm sorry that you are ONLY sorry for the WAY that those words can be taken... not sorry for actually speaking them from your heart. This does show the nature of your heart.

I don’t know or care much about your politics or politicians in the US, but it would appear from comments made, that many people were brainwashed into believing and voting for Obama. Many people are brainwashed into believing that they ought not to eat meat. Many people are brainwashed into believing that there are UFO’s and Aliens. Many people are brainwashed into believing that there is no God, and that there was no such thing as creation. Many people are brainwashed into believing that this is good for you or that is bad for you, that you need one of these new gadgets, that you have just got to get this new trend of clothing, etc.. etc..

You are welcome to your lack of care for US politics.

Yes, but not fully naked.

Well, here in the USA when you shower, you are nude. Anyone showering with a bathing suit still on would be... odd.

I would hate to think that I got some gay guy all excited.

Is this really needed?

Have you ever been sexually abused by another man?

If I was and testified of something like that in my past... where would you go with that testimony?

[Caleb]

As I stated to Tea, I don't take what you said personal... I do however want you to see who your careless words can be taken. Based on your answer here, you are not aware. I will not assume the reason you make such statements against a person's character is because you truly mean your words, as hurtful. As I said... if the comments were to anyone in this thread, I'd still call you on it. I'm not doing this because it was me.

The point is this... your words are not fruitful and your term "character assassination" is a great term because such words are "curses" off your tongue and what comes off the tongue can both bless and curse. Those words are curses and they are assassinating the character of ANYONE you direct such words at.

I just want you to know that because such words can only come from the heart of a person and thus... the fruit of such words, reveals what is in the heart of a person.

I'm sorry that you are ONLY sorry for the WAY that those words can be taken... not sorry for actually speaking them from your heart. This does show the nature of your heart.

Yes I spoke from the heart and again you make it what you will.

To say that trampling on the innocent, is simply ‘collateral’ to allay your fears, shows the fruit of your heart.

[Slug1]

Yes I spoke from the heart and again you make it what you will.

To say that trampling on the innocent, is simply ‘collateral’ to allay your fears, shows the fruit of your heart.

Well, no more assuming what comes from your heart. I don't make it what "I" will... all we are to do is view the fruit and the truth is revealed and now, you confirm.

How does stating what I said mean it's allying my fears? How does your accusation that I am allying my fears (which I am not BTW)... show fruit of mine and not yours (as you accuse me falsely)?

I stated this:

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

Explain how you can twist what I said into what you just stated... "trampling on the innocent".

I never said "trampling on the innocent"... you did. My statement doesn't mean, trampling on the innocent. My statement is in reply to your statement:

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

If a person is "suspected of committing a crime" then they are NOT wrongfully arrested. If you were a cop and you suspected a person was committing a crime are you gonna DO YOUR JOB and arrest them, or are you NOT gonna do your job and ignore the fact that you suspect them of doing a crime? BY arresting them... it's is NOT wrongful.

If a person is NOT a suspect, has done nothing wrong to BE SUSPECTED of criminal activity and they are STILL arrested... then this is wrongful.

You see how your wording don't show the reality of a situation? Think about it... YOU, as a cop suspect a person of doing criminal activity, are you gonna do your job and arrest them, or are you NOT gonna do your job by NOT arresting them??

"When" you do arrest them (which is the PROPER thing to do) and later they are proven innocent at the end of the trial (or they never went to trial)... you made a mistake... now, did YOU trample on an innocent as IF YOU MEANT TO TRAMPLE ON THEM... or did you make a mistake as you "suspected" them of doing a crime and were following through with PROPER procedure in arresting them? They are "collateral damage" and those who make "mistakes" don't DO IT ON PURPOSE.

[aftertheflood]

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.

Ya know Slug1, I'll agree with one provision, a little thing found in Deut. 18 I believe. ANY cop or DA the wrongfully arrests or prosecutes someone MUST do the same amount of time the one arrested or prosecuted! Might actually start doing their jobs better. I am for limited government and that means every last branch of government - top to bottom. And severe limits and controls need to be placed on the legal system.

[Slug1]

Ya know Slug1, I'll agree with one provision, a little thing found in Deut. 18 I believe. ANY cop or DA the wrongfully arrests or prosecutes someone MUST do the same amount of time the one arrested or prosecuted! Might actually start doing their jobs better. I am for limited government and that means every last branch of government - top to bottom. And severe limits and controls need to be placed on the legal system.

I'd suggest reading through the rest of the posts too.

I know when cops make mistakes they can be suspended or fired or put in prison... granted this isn't the same as doing the "same" per Deut 18... but we're not Jews born before Jesus' resurrection either.

[Caleb]

Ya know Slug1, I'll agree with one provision, a little thing found in Deut. 18 I believe. ANY cop or DA the wrongfully arrests or prosecutes someone MUST do the same amount of time the one arrested or prosecuted! Might actually start doing their jobs better. I am for limited government and that means every last branch of government - top to bottom. And severe limits and controls need to be placed on the legal system.

Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Deu 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
Deu 19:17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
Deu 19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
Deu 19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
Deu 19:20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
Deu 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

God gives us His standards by which any man should be charged and judged for any crime, but today, man says that that standard is insufficient. Today, all man needs to be arrested and charged, is 'suspicion' of guilt.

[Slug1]

God gives us His standards by which any man should be charged and judged for any crime, but today, man says that that standard is insufficient. Today, all man needs to be arrested and charged, is 'suspicion' of guilt.

If a person is acting in a way that would generate "suspicion"... any cop doing their job will arrest them if their suspicion proves real... like a person suddenly running from the cop when the suspicion they may be carrying drugs is tested. If the person isn't carrying drugs and submits to a frisk/search on the street and proves the suspicion was false, they don't get arrested. The one who ran, they get arrested due to their reaction to the cops suspicion and even if after the arrest they don't have drugs... their arrest was WARRANTED due to their actions.

Caleb, I'm gonna ask you a simple question. Is your distrust of law enforcement based on TV and Movies, or is it based on "real life" law enforcement?

Everything you say... I'd actually agree with you based on what "cops" do in the MOVIES and on FICTIONAL T.V. shows. The SCRIPTS tell them to arrest unsuspected people and to make it interesting, bash their heads around and "say" they resisted. While this can happen in real life, it's UNCOMMON and not the norm.

In real life... a person who rides their bike without a "bell" isn't gonna be arrested. That comment in the article is a statement from a person who don't like the new law and is clutching at straws making up a scenario in an attempt to SWAY others to NOT accept the new law. You know... get people on their side, with deceitful comments.

Any cop would KNOW, any person SHOULD know... no one is arrested for riding a bike without a bell on it. That comment was all about deceit to sway the readers.

[Caleb]

If a person is acting in a way that would generate "suspicion"... any cop doing their job will arrest them if their suspicion proves real... like a person suddenly running from the cop when the suspicion they may be carrying drugs is tested. If the person isn't carrying drugs and submits to a frisk/search on the street and proves the suspicion was false, they don't get arrested. The one who ran, they get arrested due to their reaction to the cops suspicion and even if after the arrest they don't have drugs... their arrest was WARRANTED due to their actions.

Caleb, I'm gonna ask you a simple question. Is your distrust of law enforcement based on TV and Movies, or is it based on "real life" law enforcement?

Everything you say... I'd actually agree with you based on what "cops" do in the MOVIES and on FICTIONAL T.V. shows. The SCRIPTS tell them to arrest unsuspected people and to make it interesting, bash their heads around and "say" they resisted. While this can happen in real life, it's UNCOMMON and not the norm.

In real life... a person who rides their bike without a "bell" isn't gonna be arrested. That comment in the article is a statement from a person who don't like the new law and is clutching at straws making up a scenario in an attempt to SWAY others to NOT accept the new law. You know... get people on their side, with deceitful comments.

Any cop would KNOW, any person SHOULD know... no one is arrested for riding a bike without a bell on it. That comment was all about deceit to sway the readers.

I watch very little TV and can hardly remember the last time I saw a movie.
Not being from the US, I don’t know the persuasions of your news media as you do.

What about the ‘courthouse news’? They say pretty much the same as the NYT

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/02/45245.htm

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the 14-page opinion, which describes humiliating strip searches of individuals arrested for minor offenses.
"They include a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years, who was arrested for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration," Breyer wrote. "They include women who were strip-searched during periods of lactation or menstruation. They include victims of sexual violence. They include individuals detained for such infractions as driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, or riding a bicycle without an audible bell. They include persons who perhaps should never have been placed in the general jail population in the first place.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[Slug1]

I watch very little TV and can hardly remember the last time I saw a movie.
Not being from the US, I don’t know the persuasions of your news media as you do.

What about the ‘courthouse news’? They say pretty much the same as the NYT

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/02/45245.htm



Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Yeah, Hooah... after some research... we got a hand it to NJ to pass a law that can put a person in jail for riding a bike without a bell.

Who'd a ever seriously thunk... that could be true.

Still, we have to do the math... the riding of the bike without the bell isn't gonna get you strip searched. It's only the new law that requires ANYONE who is sent to jail, to be searched.

NJ has to decide if riding a bike without an audible bell is an offense requiring jail time. If they continue, then any who violate this law, will get strip searched.

So that is one state where that offense will result in a strip search due to enforcement of both that law (state level) and the new federal law, USA level.

Still deceitful since NJ does this and the reader would not know that truth without researching it.

[aftertheflood]

Slug, living and ministering in the inner city I have seen far too much law enforcement activity that is borderline at best. So much so that I now automatically assume that any cop I meet is a power tripping junior boyscout (until they prove otherwise) that we've been dumb enough to give a badge and a gun to! I know a bunch of the older cops such a Morgan, a SWAT tactics and weapons instructor who refer to these types as "badge happy" and they don't like either. And then there is a few of the nutter DA's around these parts who are firmly convinced that "God" put them in office to incarcerate as many people as they can. I also know how the system works in that if you are arrested and can't afford bond then you are stuck. On your second or third court date the DA's office will offer a plea deal that is essentially worthless. If you refuse it they will ask for a continuance at your pretrial and hold you for another 90 days. They will then offer you another plea deal and ask you to wave your right to a speedy trial. That can be to your advantage if you are taking it to trial but that is not their motivation. If you refuse the plea they will ask for another continuance and if you accept the plea - BANG - they have their conviction. Regardless, at this point you've already spent several months in jail, lost your house or apartment, maybe your marriage, your car, tools, storage, and the list goes on and on. So you accept the plea, often even if you are innocent just to get out and try to salvage your life. But now you're behind the proverbial 8 ball because you have a conviction. I suggest recall one of the principle rebukes God gave through the prophets - no justice for the widow, the weak, the fatherless, and the poor! If you can't afford bond your life is screwed unless you have a very strong support system on the outs. I've seen this scenario played out time and again in working with Open Door Ministries and the Crucible. It is a biblical principle going back to Gen.18:23-32 that it is a great evil to imprison an innocent man. This concept is echoed in such legal ideas as the Blackstone Formulation that holds forth that "it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to suffer". If we are innocent until proven guilty then the accused should be treated as if he or she were innocent! There are what I would consider reasonable exceptions in the case where real violence has been perpetrated. But even then, if the accused is acquitted then measures must be in place to restore them to their former state prior to charges. And I hold that some of that should come straight out of the pocket of the DA and maybe the cop if they did not function with ALL due diligence. And do not assume that I am some bleeding heart type because that would be incorrect. I simply find that I am not willing to stand in opposition God's heart on the matter as He has expressed it.

[keck553]

Don't get arrested.

[Reynolds357]

I have for 6 years until 2004.



Trust me, I would rather spend a 100 nights in a cell, than to be forced to a strip search.

You would rather be in jail 100 days than have someone look at you naked? I will never figure that one out.
In working in the jail for 4 years, you never found any weapons or drugs when performing strip searches?

[Caleb]

Don't get arrested.

Have you got any more useless advice, or is that it?

[ChristianCoffee]

Have you got any more useless advice, or is that it?

If I ever get arrested, I will make sure I bring some 70's disco music with me: to make the search more entertaining.