StrangeSox

I have to say I at least appreciate both Roberts' and Alito's concurrences for explicitly stating the limited nature of the ruling. Reading the majority opinion leaves a different impression.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) Basically, we need to assume everyone is a terrorist and strip-search everyone. Que video of TSA patting down a 3 year old in a wheel chair at O'Hare. But unless he had the plans for 9/11 up his ass, the search wouldn't have mattered.

The majority opinion gives us a case that shows you don't have to go way over the top with hypotheticals to come up with some pretty absurd cases of people being arrested for minor offenses: So you could be arrested for not seatbelting your children and then subjected to a strip search, depending on which jurisdiction you were in. I suppose the best remedy now are State laws barring these policies.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) He's making the point that people arrested for "minor offenses" have the capacity to be just as dangerous as those arrested for more serious offenses, and therefore shouldn't be excluded from the general prison population or from strip searches by default just because they were indeed arrested for "minor offenses." But such a search would not have resulted in anything. It seems like a base appeal to "9/11!" to me.

Elsewhere it was highlighted that Kennedy made this odd reference in the opinion: Can anyone explain why this helps bolster the case?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) I couldn't tell you this. But it matters. It's like when a superior asks me to do something that really doesn't need to be done...but they want it done anyway...only to a different degree, since they're working for the government. They're working under a lot of rules you and I are do not...and I do not know all of these rules, or the reasons for these rules. I think maybe we were talking past each other. The issuance of a warrant is a serious matter regardless of the underlying reason for that warrant--I agree. That isn't what people (including the lawyers writing briefs for the SC and SC Justices themselves) are talking about when they say "minor offense." They're delineating between more serious crimes like robbery or assault and misdemeanors such as failing to pay a fine. Why the warrant was issued is something that can factor into the judgement of the in-processing officers at a jail if they are given latitude on who to search.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) But this prison, in specific, finds it necessary. Why? I do not know...but they do. What would you like me to do about it?! It's their rules, not mine...not the federal governments. I'd have liked for it to be unconstitutional. Barring that, I'd like for states to pass laws against such policies.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) There is simply no way I can explain it to you, then. If a warrant is issued for your arrest, regardless of how minor the underlying reason was, it's not minor...you're getting arrested because a judge REQUESTED you be arrested. The issuance of the judges order to arrest said person is NOT minor, even if the reason for it is. I honestly don't know how else I can explain this to you. I understand that you are saying the issuance of a warrant is a serious event. I guess what I'm failing to understand is why this would matter.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) You mean the same federal agency that falls under the awesome and extended Patriot Act laws? Seems to me that if they feel like ignoring those "rules", they can...and do. I have no idea what point this is addressing. Mandatory strip searches are not seen as a necessary policy by many people in the field of corrections.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) No, I didn't. You're simply not understanding how the system works. The reason for the warrant may be minor, but the issuance of the warrant is NOT. I don't know how else to explain this to a person that doesn't want to understand... I know you're smart enough to understand, but you're not understanding on purpose because you disagree with it. What am I not understanding? That you want to define the issuance of a warrant as a non-minor event and completely decouple the seriousness of the actual offense? Ok, what difference does that make? You're still being arrested and detained and perhaps charged with a minor offense.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) For one, and from what I know, though I could be wrong...you're never arrested and processed into a federal prison. You only go there after convicted. You're put in a local holding cell or a state temporary hold, such as Cook County Jail. There, you'd await trail, and then be moved into a bigger state prison or federal penitentiary. There are numerous federal agencies such as ICE and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that follow this policy. The ACA does not recommend mandatory searches at any level, and the federal policies were developed based on this recommendation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba...uthcheckdam.pdf from the same brief:

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) The offense underlying the warrant may be minor, but the warrant itself is not "minor", or they wouldn't issue it. Then you've just defined every warrant as a major offense. That's ridiculous on its face, and it is not at all how the language is used throughout the briefs and rulings.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) And for the bold part: I never said that. Every person that gets arrested and put in a community holding facility, yes, for obvious reasons. But every person that gets arrested? No. Again, it depends on the facility you are being put into. They all have their own rules for very good reasons. Why does the main correctional association and every federal agency as well as numerous state and local agencies disagree that mandatory strip searches are necessary?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) If the warrant didn't exist, he wouldn't have been arrested, nor strip searched. You assume he still would have been...people don't get arrested and strip searched for minor offenses. Having a warrant out for your arrest...is NOT minor, just FYI. I do not assume that, but focusing on whether or not the warrant was valid is completely irrelevant to what this ruling was about. Yes, you are correct in saying that, had there not been an error, he would not have been detained. However, the constitutional claims in this suit are not dependent on the legality of the arrest and detention and would apply equally to someone arrested for actually not paying a fine. The error that lead to the warrant is simply not relevant to whether a policy of strip searching every detainee is constitutional. The reason for the warrant was minor--an unpaid fine. He was arrested for a minor offense and, due to the policies at the jails, was strip searched. "Minor offense" is being used in a specific way in this case repeatedly in the court documents. You cannot just redefine any arrest warrant as not a minor offense.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba...uthcheckdam.pdf

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:28 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) 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. Federal jails are explicitly barred from enacting such policies. Prisoners who do not consent to a strip search are not placed in general population. I do not know if all prisoners are given that choice or if it is done on a suspicion basis.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) 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. But no one here is arguing that so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. That the warrant was illegitimate makes this ruling even more absurd, but even if it wasn't due to a computer error, we'd still have someone detained for a minor offense being subjected to multiple strip searches. That is what is at issue in this case, not wrongful arrest.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:20 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) 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. I'm honestly curious, where do you (or anyone else, for that matter) think I am going? My sole contention is with the Constitutionality of suspicionless strip searches at jails. I would not have an issue if this was done at prisons where appropriate. I don't have an issue with the officer arresting him on a valid warrant. I don't have an issue with strip searches where there is suspicion.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:00 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) 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. This is not what I have an issue with. It is brought up to highlight that you can be detained in jail for minor offenses. Being detained for a minor offense can result in you being subjected to a mandatory strip search. I really don't know what you're trying to get at here. I do not fault the arresting officer. I fault the policy of mandatory strip searches and the SC ruling.