StrangeSox

Also maybe a bigger issue is that people are detained for such petty offenses in the first place!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:10 PM) The problem for the system if the Court rules the other way is as follows. If I am member of a gang, I use the fact that they can not strip search for minor offenses, to get contraband into the jail. I have other cronies come in for stupid things, and they have the contraband. If it is illegal for the Jail to strip search without probable cause, there is a high chance that this contraband can enter the jail, because I know they are unlikely to search. 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.

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.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:24 PM) Show me where or how someone who violated a leash law goes to jail. Show me how someone goes to jail who hasn't been either convicted or charged with a crime - and therefore has no reasonable suspicion attached. You are not stating the actual facts of the case, you are stringing together some hypothetical scenarios, interlaced with a broadness that this ruling does not take on, to paint a picture of a police state. I am saying you are factually wrong. First I'll tell you to read the ruling and the dissent since this is all in there. I've already c-p'ed the relevant parts in this thread. But then I'll do your homework for you: Breyers citing various briefs to the court that highlight people detained for incredibly minor issues including leash laws The summary of the case in the ruling, which states that Florence was detained pursuant to a bench warrant for an unpaid fine. Please note that I did not claim that people subject to these searches have not been charged with a crime, though I don't believe that's necessarily true in order to be detained. You can be held without charges for a certain period of time. I defer to people with more experience on the matter for that. However, simply being charged with a crime does not warrant suspicion for a strip search. That would be tautological in that by definition no strip search in a jail would be without suspicion. Given that this issue made it to the SC, that the language of suspicionless searches is used frequently and that no one is arguing for the definition you're attempting, I am forced to assume that you are wrong. These are the facts of the case: 1) Florence was arrested for an unpaid fine. The accuracy of the warrant is not relevant to the claims of 4th and 14th amendment violations. 2) Florence was detained by police and transferred to two different jails. These jails both have mandatory strip searches for all incoming detainees. 3) Pursuant to said policy, Florence was strip searched twice. He was not arrested for a violent crime or in any way related to violence or drugs. 4) Per the SC ruling, such a policy of strip searching every incoming detainee to the jails is not a violation of your 4th or 14th amendment rights. This does not mean that the SC has now mandated such a policy but that such a policy is perfectly legitimate if a jail so chooses. A ruling in favor of Florence would also not have been any strip searches, just those without suspicion. Even if we leave aside the extreme examples of people being detained for extremely minor offenses such as leash laws, you cannot ignore that you can still be detained for any number of non-violent, non-drug related misdemeanors such as traffic violations or unpaid fines.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) 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. This isn't a question of abuse but of policy. Anyone admitted to these two jails is strip searched. There isn't a question of police abuse. It isn't even a question of wrongful arrest.

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. Those are the actual facts of this case. The leash law detention was brought up in one of the briefs and mentioned in the dissent. These jails have mandatory strip searches for anyone processed in. please read the ruling before accusing me of going over the top.

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?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) 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?! Britain and the US seem to be in a race over who can be more terrible in these regards.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) 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. Federal detention centers explicitly bar a policy of suspicionless searches. There's a better system.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:58 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) 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 white 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) 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 searching before being admitted into a jail, not at a local police station. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:50 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:47 AM) You can still sue...and win. Because people have. People have won what? Sue over what? And that still doesn't make these policies unconstitutional and ban their implementation.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:46 AM) Then why'd you bring it up like it's the same when it's not? A snarky jab at a terrible decision.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:23 AM) It doesn't have to be. As Soxbadger said, and I've said, and others have said, the states have any powers they want to take that do not violate federal laws or the federal Constitution. The parameters of execution are delineated in their state constitutions. Seriously, you are just not getting this, and I can't keep discussing it, just to tell you the same thing five times in five different ways of wording it. Some additional googling turned up Florida's brief to the SC. http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/11...O%20Private.pdf They are arguing that it's a plenary police power granted to the States. This is more or less what I was looking for.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) What the court is not saying, is that in this specific case, the facts may show that he should have never been arrested in the first place and therefore his rights were violated. The ruling is over the issue of suspicion-less strip searches not wrongful detention.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) 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. Civil suits over what? Thanks to this ruling, it is clear that no rights are violated when someone is strip searched without suspicion.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:37 AM) Bush v. Gore is an outlier, Im not even sure if its considered precedent. It explicitly states that it is not precedent.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:23 AM) It doesn't have to be. As Soxbadger said, and I've said, and others have said, the states have any powers they want to take that do not violate federal laws or the federal Constitution. The parameters of execution are delineated in their state constitutions. Seriously, you are just not getting this, and I can't keep discussing it, just to tell you the same thing five times in five different ways of wording it. States do not have unlimited powers excepting those reserved by the federal government.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:25 AM) Which wasn't a state election. Election rules are set by the various states and the SCOTUS overruled the SCOF's interpretations of Florida's election laws.

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:

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) Furthermore State Supreme Courts are the final say on the interpretation of the State's Constitution. Except for Bush v Gore!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:10 AM) States have the rights their Constitutions, and by proxy the federal government, grant to them. This has been said a zillion times, what are you missing here? The states' rights are limited only by federally enumerated powers, and the state's constitutional law. I know. And I keep asking "what power is this, and where is it in Massachusetts' constitution?" You keep answering a question I'm not asking. Where is this enumerated in Mass's constitution? No one here may know this, but I was hoping maybe someone had read an article recently that discussed this. I would be surprised to learn if this was an explicitly enumerated power.