Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) Great, again, no one is arguing that here. The issue is the policy of mandatory strip searching all detainees such that officers are not given deference on who is reasonable to search and who isn't. It depends on the facility. Federal Prisons have private non general population holding cells...many smaller prisons do not. So they don't have the same choices available at the federal level.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) I believe that the SC has explicitly ruled that officers do not have to give credence to exculpatory evidence like a receipt showing he paid. I am not taking issue with the arresting officer's actions. The officers working at the jail/facility fall under the same rules...they HAVE to process it as a legitimate warrant, even if it's in error. The guy should file suit for the embarrassment he suffered due to their clerical error...and he'd win, they'd settle that out of court in a minute.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) I have not ignored this. I've asked what weight should be given to these hypotheticals since many jails do not have mandatory strip search policies and do not have these problems. The evidence that the mandatory policies are effective in preventing contraband appears to be scant at best, as Breyer cites in his dissent. It probably, and very likely, depends on the kind of jail you are talking about. No, the jail they put Bernie Madoff in probably doesn't have a policy of mandatory strip searches. Cook County Jail on the other hand, with a mixed gang population in a general arrest room...probably does.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:23 PM) The legitimacy of the warrant really is irrelevant. That's not what the lawsuit was over and that's not what the ruling covers. The ruling is over the Constitutionality of suspicionless strip searches as a policy at jails. No, that's the f***ing point. The warrant is NOT irrelevant, for the reasons I stated in my previous post. The police/jail he's brought too do NOT have a choice. It's a warrant issued by a judge, which they CANNOT ignore, even if it's in error...they HAVE to process, or they'd be terminated.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) Understood. However, there are issues with warrants all the time. It isn't as though there has never been something in the governmental bureaucracy that was inaccurate due to misfiled or mishandled paperwork. One would think if the guy produced a receipt showing he paid said fine, insisted that said fine was paid, that they could check before they submitted him to the general prison population. I guess I'm not going to go as far as SS here, but I'd award the guy one hell of a recovery (at least mid 5 figures) if I was the judge. Really? I mean, really? Officer: (After running plates/license) "Oh, wow...this guy has a warrant out for his arrest." Calls in to dispatcher, who double checks, dispatcher verifies warrant is active. Officer: "Sir, step out of the car and put your hands behind your back, you're being placed under arrest for an outstanding warrant..." Innocent Guy With Warrant Out For His Arrest: "Oh, that's for a fine I paid...I even have the receipt! You can trust this is a valid receipt, as I'm sure you know exactly what a valid receipt looks like from every fine paid...please officer, take my word for it, not the federal/state computer system! I swear if you get in trouble for not arresting me because I have a receipt, I'll support your family for the rest of your life when you're fired for not making the arrest now that you've looked up my ID/Plates and spoken with a dispatcher that KNOWS you were supposed to make an arrest!" Ok, I think I made my point. There is the real world...and then there is the fantasy world. The receipt is NOT grounds enough for the officer to NOT make the arrest. I know you don't want to believe that...but that's life.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:17 PM) I can show you a person who has been arrested and strip searched for not paying a fine. Perhaps later this afternoon I'll read through the various briefs to see exactly what Breyer was referencing. No, you can show me a person that was arrested because there was a warrant outstanding for his arrest. What the warrant was for, again, means nothing. The fact that the warrant existed is the crux of the problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) I'd also like to note that I do not rely on any hypothetical scenarios as Florence was actually arrested and detained and subjected to mandatory strip searches for a simple failure to pay a fine. This is NOT why. He was arrested and detained because there was an active warrant out for his arrest. Why the warrant is issued is meaningless to the police officer...the officer CANNOT let him go with the warrant outstanding...or the officer could and probably would get fired if this was discovered. I know you don't give a s*** about someone elses livelihood...but losing your job in this regard would pretty much relegate you to being a mall security guard making minimum wage for the rest of your life...so no, officers don't tend to "not care" when warrants are outstanding. It's not the cops fault the warrant wasn't cleared off the computer...whoever failed to clear it is at fault...not the police for doing their jobs.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:57 PM) I think that is where I was going...it's kind of frightening that they would hold you in jail for not having a bell on your f***ing bicycle. Because they wouldn't. They technically CAN, but it's not something they'd do. You guys are taking these examples off the deep end. You show me a person that's been put in prison and strip searched for not having a bell on their bicycle.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) This is not correct. First, if you are a known gang member, then there's reason for suspicion. Second, many jails around the country do not employ these policies and yet we don't see this problem. This is what's incorrect. In these cases, the gang members are NOT known gang members...they'd be initiates that have no gang affiliations to this point...hence how they'd use "applying members" to get contraband into the jail. OR, to drive the point further, they could threaten a non gang member into doing it for them and say that if they didn't, they'll retaliate against a family member, etc...there are so many functional scenarios they could employ to get a person into the prison FOR them. I've ALREADY stated this, you AGAIN choose to ignore it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) You have gone so far over the top now. Mandatory strip searches if you are detained for any reason? False on its face. No reason for suspicion? False. Detained for leash law and going to jail? False. As I said in my reply above yours, I understand he's reaching for an extreme to make a point...but his extreme requires outstanding systemic abuse of police powers...abuses no sane officer would ever perform. I get his point...but it's highlighted to the extreme. He seems to think police abuse their powers more often than not...and I've noticed this from the Internet community at large...a large swatch of Internet denizens seem to believe this about police. I have news for them on the contrary, police are NOT like this. They get a few stories per year and latch onto them as if they're everyday occurrences. They're not. The stories you read about bad officers and abuse of power are the 0.1%...the stories you never read are the ones that constitute the other 99.9%. But meh...in THIS case, we don't care about the mass majority...we care about the talking points 0.1%.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) There's something hilarious about talking about freedom while defending the right of the police state to have mandatory strip searches if you're detained for any reason. This is not prison, these are not people convicted of crimes. They may have done nothing wrong but may still be subjected to strip searches without any reason for suspicion. If your daughter was detained for violating a leash law, would you be perfectly accepting of her being strip searched? Just because they can does not mean they will. I don't know a single police officer that would do that, and I know many. Not to mention shes 1...and they'd be in prison and then dead within about 8 seconds of being admitted into jail if they did. So...no. I understand you are trying to highlight an extreme to make a point, and I understand your point. This is why you are one of my favorite posters here...you make me think even though I tend to disagree with you at times. Abuses can unfortunately exist in a society where police need specialized rights to reign in crime and deal with criminals. As I've said, innocents CAN fall through the cracks, but that is NOT their goal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) Police state would be things like unreasonable searches, patriot act, criminals have no expectation of privacy, etc. Once some one is in jail, almost by definition, they are involved in a police state. Furthermore, what is the real goal here? To allow inmates to have more contraband? There is an important difference between being in jail and being free. Not in the SS utopia...to which you are not invited. In the SS Utopia, being in Jail is where you want to be...that's where all the good stuff is. Being "free" is bad...that's where we live. It's like the Nightclub from Night at the Roxberry...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) My complaint is about the SC's ruling that these jails' policy of strip searching without suspicion is Constitutional and another step down the police state mentality road. You mean the traffic cameras they're putting up all over the place wasn't enough of a reminder of this for you...but this is?!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) Federal detention centers explicitly bar a policy of suspicionless searches. There's a better system. So your complaint is about a single jail. Then don't get arrested around there...I know your a criminal and all, so stay away from that jail.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:06 AM) This is a gray area. Im pretty consistently pro-defendant, but its also very clear once you are in jail you lose a substantial amount of rights. That being said, even with this ruling, it does not mean that you cant sue if your rights are violated. It just merely states that having a policy of strip searching when having inmates enter into a jail, is not a per say rights violation. That's pretty much how I see it, too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:02 AM) did you read the parts of Breyer's dissent I copied? Many, many people entering numerous jails around the country are not searched like that. Numerous jail industry groups as cited by Breyer don't advocate for these policies you say are absolutely essential. I never said they're essential to carry out...I said they're essential for those in the situation to have, in the case they need them. Oh, and the supreme court agrees.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:01 AM) This is the mandatory policy at these two jails and others as well. It is not solely about police abusing a power but about subjecting people who have been detained for minor offenses to intrusive searches. I'm confused as to why you think I'm arguing from sort of of utopian position. You can recognize and weigh security risks and come to the conclusion that the most intrusive policies are not necessary, prudent or Constitutional. Because you can judge a book by it's cover, doesn't mean everyone else can. That a good enough reason? Honestly, just because you are arrested for a minor offense, does not make you less potentially dangerous than anyone else. It's called precaution. It's exercised when deemed necessary, or at times, ALWAYS when being admitted into a shared cell at a prison. If you are trying to make the point that the system isn't perfect...you're right, it's not...and nobody's saying it is. But show us a better one. Like they tell international travelers...if you're going to get arrested, get to your f***ing embassy and get arrested there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) It DOES and DID happen, though. In fact, there was just a supreme court ruling where someone arrested for a minor offense of unpaid fines was strip searched! And the dissenting opinion provided numerous examples of people detained for minor offenses being strip searched. That it was done at a jail and not a police station doesn't change anything. These are still people detained for minor offenses and not convicted of anything being subjected to humiliating and degrading searches. They were searched before entering a jail, not by the local police. It's NOT the same. ANYONE entering a jail MUST be searched like that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:52 AM) This isn't about false arrest. It's about suspicionless strip searches. If you're properly arrested for an unpaid speeding ticket or riding your bike without a functional bell, you can be strip searched. I find that appalling, you find it acceptable. Then don't break the law. I find it acceptable because it WON'T happen just because it CAN happen. I've NEVER seen it happen, I've never heard of it happening...in this story he was searched before being admitted into a JAIL, not at a local police station holding cell. I have outlined the reasons WHY police NEED to reserve the right to do this, for ANY reason. I realize you live in this utopia that nobody else lives in, and never have to deal with anything other than the greatest people in the world...but for the rest of us, and for the police that DO have to deal with the s*** heads of the world, they REQUIRE that right for various and many good reasons. Again...can they abuse this privilege afforded them to do their jobs?? Yes. But most, that being 99.9999% of them, would NOT.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:48 AM) People have won what? Sue over what? And that still doesn't make these policies unconstitutional and ban their implementation. False arrest. If they arrest you for nothing and strip search you, they WILL lose in a civil case. Just because they CAN search you for no reason, doesn't mean they can arrest you for no reason.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:48 AM) A snarky jab at a terrible decision. I thought it was a good decision.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:39 AM) Civil suits over what? Thanks to this ruling, it is clear that no rights are violated when someone is strip searched without suspicion. You can still sue...and win. Because people have.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:38 AM) It explicitly states that it is not precedent. Then why'd you bring it up like it's the same when it's not?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) Election rules are set by the various states and the SCOTUS overruled the SCOF's interpretations of Florida's election laws. Because it was for a federal election. If this was for a state senate seat, for example, SCOTUS wouldn't have intervened.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:31 AM) Breyer provides a list of some of the people that get strip-searched: And some evidence of the seriousness of the security risks mitigated by the invasive, humiliating searches: And then provides that many facilities do not permit suspicionless searches and nonetheless are not dens of murder from smuggled weapons: Breyer then highlights that there's a lack of actual examples of the effectiveness of such a policy: They can file civil suits. People do it all the time. If they're right, they'll get paid quite a bit to go away.