• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SCOTUS Allows Jail Strip Searches for Any Reason

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
woolfe9999 said:
The ruling is that the U.S. Constitution permits jailhouse strip searches, not that they are required to perform them. The state and local authorities are free to not strip search if that is what they prefer. This ruling does exactly what you said - it leaves the issue up to the states. It's a shitty ruling, but not for this reason.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's bad?
 
Infohawk said:
Why do you think it's bad?
Click to expand...

As others in this thread have aptly explained, the risk of only doing a standard pat down search on people brought in for minor offenses is extremely minimal. Constitutional doctrine is based on weighing the degree of intrusion into personal rights against the benefit to society. A strip search is a pretty serious intrusion. It isn't justified by the marginal risks posed by people charged with minor offenses.
 
It is not for any reason.

Conveniently ignored
searches are legal so long as the searched individuals are going to be placed in the general prison population.
Click to expand...
 
EagleKeeper said:
It is not for any reason.

Conveniently ignored
Click to expand...

I saw that and wondered about it myself. I tend to think it isn't much of a qualifier. It would only apply where they intend to incarcerate the person for a few hours and put that person in his own cell for that time. That isn't what happens even in cases of minor offenses. If it's meant to be for a few hours, you're usually put in a cell with other people brought in for minor offenses. If I understand this correctly, they'd be allowed to strip search you in that case because you pose a risk to others with whom you are confined.
 
Sounds like they can strip search you just moving from one cell to another, or basically whenever they want now. The plaintiff was strip searched twice while in custody.
 
Jail and Prison are two different places. This ruling apparently only applies to prison, as shown by that phrase.
 
Seems reasonable to me. You can't have guys making zip guns and doing drug deals in jail yard.
 
First, let's review the circumstances of this case.

There was a man who *had done nothing wrong and there was no actual reason to take him to jail*. He had previously owed a fine and paid it; an error in the computer system showed there was an outstanding warrant for him when there wasn't. Further, he knew that - and they didn't fix it, so he carried in his car paperwork proving he had paid the fine, to show an officer if pulled over. The officer ignored this and took him in anyway, arresting him in front of his pregnant wife and 4 year old. He spent six days in jail.

It's not relevant to the issue, but good background info. Oh by the way guess his race.

As for the legal issue - it's an interesting question. There is something to be said for erring on the side of security in jails.

The chance of a person randomly arrested for a minor crime having contraband in an orifice is all but zero. The chance for anyone arrested by surprise is all but zero, other than someone specifically arrested for suspicion of trafficking by concealing in an orifice. But something that hasn't been mentioned yet:

I've heard from a former young women who had been in jail that it was a lot easier to get drugs in jail - whenever you want - than on the outside. I was dubious about the claim - such people aren't the most credible - but I asked an ADA about the claim and was told they could easily believe it. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence of drugs in jail.

Now, what if a gang associate wanting to smuggle drugs into a jail knew they could store them where our right-wingers store their political views, and then intentionally get himself arrested for a minor charge - and expect he'd be processed into contact with the general population without a strip search? Could that not only happen but already be happening?

It's worth thinking about. Unfortunately, while it's clear this searching in this case was not 'reasonable' in terms of risk, it's hard to put the distinction into law.

I remember old movies where someone arrested by not be 'degraded' by the Sheriff by being put in handcuffs when taken in - those times are gone.

The days of respect of 'dignity' to the point of things like that are gone - in part because some people abuse the better treatment.

Remember the court here isn't deciding 'what's the right treatment', but 'does the constitutional prohibit the government from the widespread strip searching'.

The Supreme Court isn't likely to prohibit the government from spending $10 billion to prove the earth is flat - the barrier to that is the political process, not the legal one.

I haven't reached a firm position on this, as much as I can hardly think of any issue where I'd agree with the 'radical right 5' over the 'moderate 4'.

Something to think about, though, about why there's some basis for this ruling.
 
marincounty said:
SCOTUS Allows Jail Strip Searches for Any Reason

Go to jail, get strip searched.

This may soon be the new norm as jails begin to implement the U.S. Supreme Court's Monday ruling in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington. The Court has ruled that jail strip searches are legal -- even when an individual has been arrested for a minor traffic offense or failing to pay a fine.
Click to expand...

Don't see any benefit for women but for men think of it as a free Prostrate exam.
 
I disagree with this ruling. i suspect after a few people are searched for BS reasons and it hits the news it might change.

But really WTF were they thinking?
 
PokerGuy said:
This is true, it's not up to the court to create the legislation on how detainees are searched, but it IS up to the court to determine what is considered a reasonable search for someone who has not even been shown to have done anything wrong at all. Even if someone has committed a minor offense for which punishment is generally minor, such a search doesn't seem reasonable.
Click to expand...

I agree except this case was regarding a federal constitutional issue. Congress can and should address it.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Well you're not a conservative supreme court justice.
Click to expand...

You were for kicking people out of their homes for no other reason than a potential revenue increase weren't you or was that someone else? The dissenting opinions were conservatives you know. Both sides have done things we don't like.
 
waggy said:
I disagree with this ruling. i suspect after a few people are searched for BS reasons and it hits the news it might change.

But really WTF were they thinking?
Click to expand...

Only if those 'few people' end up being Senators and Congressmen. The plebs have no standing.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
You were for kicking people out of their homes for no other reason than a potential revenue increase weren't you or was that someone else? The dissenting opinions were conservatives you know. Both sides have done things we don't like.
Click to expand...

You start a dialogue with me in another thread with
Yes I can say that because that's true and you cannot back up that statement. That meshes trolling or stupidity or both. Given your track record it comes as no surprise.
Click to expand...
And now you say you can't even remember my track record? GFY.
 
it's going to suck for all the hot chicks on a friday night getting picked up for DUI or public intoxication.
 
waggy said:
I disagree with this ruling. i suspect after a few people are searched for BS reasons and it hits the news it might change.

But really WTF were they thinking?
Click to expand...

It seems they were thinking that some prisoners will go to extremes to get contraband into prisons and that the authorities have a right to go to lengths to prevent it.

As I said in my previous post, there's almost no risk for no prisoners - but prisoners could exploit this by taking advantage and getting arrested for something minor.

How many incidents of smuggling a weapon in that kills someone are needed?

Here's another idea - separate the minor offense from the general pop.
 
Craig234 said:
It seems they were thinking that some prisoners will go to extremes to get contraband into prisons and that the authorities have a right to go to lengths to prevent it.

As I said in my previous post, there's almost no risk for no prisoners - but prisoners could exploit this by taking advantage and getting arrested for something minor.

How many incidents of smuggling a weapon in that kills someone are needed?

Here's another idea - separate the minor offense from the general pop.
Click to expand...

so they screw everyone without cause? i disagree that this is good.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Oh you're going to investigate? Hopefully you're mistaken or what? I'm flattered by this little crush you've developed on me but maybe you should just leave me the fuck alone.
Click to expand...

Nope, was someone else I was thinking. BTW don't be flattered. I was curious about philosophical consistency. You are free to go and not even spiro searched 😛

The internet is a curiosity and people can be passionate but it's not a thing to take too seriously, something that I have to keep in mind as much as anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top