Supreme Court approves strip searches for any offense

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Dont they need probably cause, or I guess the offense can be construed as that.sonicare

If you're being put into a cell then they already have probable cause.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] I concur; this is a silly idea.ghoklebutter

Unfortunately for you the article was.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="thegerg"] So inmates should be held in correctional facilities without being thoroughly searched? No, that is silly. It is the responsibility of such facilities to insure the safety of staff and, most importantly, inmates. Not searching incoming inmates for weapons or contraband puts others at risk.worlock77

Unfortunately for you the article was.

In the case of the defendant, it was a strip search for no offense since he had already paid the fine. The supreme court likes to shoot down laws that enfringe on people's (aka corporation's) "freedoms", while simultaneously increasing the power of the police state. The Roberts court is a joke.

Why not? The TSA strip searches people all the time where most logical minds would find no probable cause.

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Probable cause must exist in order for one to be arrested. The searches in question are those conducted during in-processing at detention facilities after arrest. These searches are not intended to be punitive or be part of an investigation, but simply to insure that no weapons or other contraband are being brought into the facility. thegerg

Ditto. The 4th protects against unreasonable (key word there) search and seizure. Being searched before being placed in a cell is not unreasonable.

Sounds like the supreme court is getting hard on crime.Ace6301

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"] probable cause that somebody broke the law is not probable clause that one is carrying contraband. Not consenting to searches is protected under the 4th amendment. worlock77

Ditto. The 4th protects against unreasonable (key word there) search and seizure. Being searched before being placed in a cell is not unreasonable.

Being strip-searched? I disagree, pat-downs should be sufficient. You can get picked up for possession and be forced to strip down and have your body searched, I call that unreasonable.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Ditto. The 4th protects against unreasonable (key word there) search and seizure. Being searched before being placed in a cell is not unreasonable.

thegerg

Being strip-searched? I disagree, pat-downs should be sufficient. You can get picked up for possession and be forced to strip down and have your body searched, I call that unreasonable.

Which is why smuggling weapons into such facilities is so rampant, right?

I'm not saying there aren't instances where strip-searches are warranted, I'm saying that making a blanket policy that they are allowed for any arrest and not subject at all to Constitutional rights is ridiculous.

Why not? The TSA strip searches people all the time where most logical minds would find no probable cause.

Planet_Pluto

Why not? The TSA strip searches people all the time where most logical minds would find no probable cause.

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] It's quite easy to hide weapons or other contraband in a manner which a pat-down will not find. Allowing such contraband into a detention facility puts the safety of everyone in that institution at risk. thegerg

Which is why smuggling weapons into such facilities is so rampant, right?

I'm not saying there aren't instances where strip-searches are warranted, I'm saying that making a blanket policy that they are allowed for any arrest and not subject at all to Constitutional rights is ridiculous.

Firstly, no "blanket policy" has been made. The SC simply found that policies already in place are not unlawful.

Secondly, such searches aren't conducted for "any arrest", and this ruling didn't address that. This ruling is in regards to those who are being detained in gen pop.

Lastly, simply because the smuggling of contraband into detention facilities isn't rampant doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and that such smuggling represents a very real threat to inmate and staff safety.

It is a blanket policy, it says that any strip search for someone being admitted to a facility, which could mean anything from a large prison to a local jail and therefore means for any arrest, is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. Any facility can screen any person arrested for any crime and that person has no right to challenge it, it leaves THE ENTIRE decision in the hands of local law enforcement and gives NO protection to individuals, that is ridiculous.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Being strip-searched? I disagree, pat-downs should be sufficient. You can get picked up for possession and be forced to strip down and have your body searched, I call that unreasonable.

theone86

Which is why smuggling weapons into such facilities is so rampant, right?

I'm not saying there aren't instances where strip-searches are warranted, I'm saying that making a blanket policy that they are allowed for any arrest and not subject at all to Constitutional rights is ridiculous.

I could be picked up for simple posession, be pated down and still be hiding a discreet blade taped to my skin under my underware (yes, I've known people who've done such things).

Sorry to hear that USA.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] It's quite easy to hide weapons or other contraband in a manner which a pat-down will not find. Allowing such contraband into a detention facility puts the safety of everyone in that institution at risk. worlock77

Which is why smuggling weapons into such facilities is so rampant, right?

I'm not saying there aren't instances where strip-searches are warranted, I'm saying that making a blanket policy that they are allowed for any arrest and not subject at all to Constitutional rights is ridiculous.

I could be picked up for simple posession, be pated down and still be hiding a discreet blade taped to my skin under my underware (yes, I've known people who've done such things).

For one, patdowns can include around the thighs and crotch. Two, because some person MIGHT do that now EVERYONE who is picked up for something as minor as possession has their right to object forfeited? No, doesn't fly, this is giving far too much authority to local law enforcement and stripping the rights of citizens to object in any form to questionable procedures.

Sorry to hear that USA.

muller39

[QUOTE="muller39"]

Sorry to hear that USA.

sonicare

I don't see the issue here. Before being admitted into the jail you have to be searched. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I don't see the issue here. Before being admitted into the jail you have to be searched. No ifs, ands, or buts.

airshocker

For one, patdowns can include around the thighs and crotch. Two, because some person MIGHT do that now EVERYONE who is picked up for something as minor as possession has their right to object forfeited? No, doesn't fly, this is giving far too much authority to local law enforcement and stripping the rights of citizens to object in any form to questionable procedures.

theone86

They can still object, it just doesn't mean sh*t if they do.

This isn't a "questionable procedure". When someone has to be jailed they become the wards of the police department. It is the department's responsibility to make sure that person is safe at all times while in their care. A strip search, in some instances, is appropriate in ensuring they don't have anything on them that they can use to hurt themselves, or the officers.

Hurray! Now the entire police force can be just like the TSA.Serraph105

Don't pretend like you don't like it.

Some people just don't understand that it comes down to the safety of the facility. I wonder why they're so dead set against the part where you search the guy but don't seem to object to taking away his possessions and freedom by dressing him in the state's clothes and locking him in a cage. thegerg

Agreed. The objections don't make sense to me.

Being strip searched by female police officers sounds hot

Anyway...I thought you got strip searched before being admitted to your jail cell anyway.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="thegerg"]Some people just don't understand that it comes down to the safety of the facility. I wonder why they're so dead set against the part where you search the guy but don't seem to object to taking away his possessions and freedom by dressing him in the state's clothes and locking him in a cage. airshocker

Agreed. The objections don't make sense to me.

Look at it from the other side. If you get arrested(not convicted) for something non-violent and/or trivial, you wouldn't feel infringed upon if you were forced to pull down your pants and spread your cheeks in front of everybody?DaBrainz

The only time you go to a jail is if you're arrested and they plan on trying you. The rest of the time you normally stay in the department's lock up(or drunk tank, as we call it). Secondly, that's not how a strip search is conducted. It's usually done by a medically trained officer, or EMT, and is done in private.

The court seems to have a convoluted sense of criminal rights.

Uphold miranda rights, order Califronia to release 30k prisoners but approve this.

Why not? The TSA strip searches people all the time where most logical minds would find no probable cause.

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]Look at it from the other side. If you get arrested(not convicted) for something non-violent and/or trivial, you wouldn't feel infringed upon if you were forced to pull down your pants and spread your cheeks in front of everybody?airshocker

The only time you go to a jail is if you're arrested and they plan on trying you. The rest of the time you normally stay in the department's lock up(or drunk tank, as we call it). Secondly, that's not how a strip search is conducted. It's usually done by a medically trained officer, or EMT, and is done in private.

You didn't answer the question. If someone gets a bench warrent for not paying parking tickets they get arrested, there is no reason to force them to show off their privates. If this happened to me I would be infuriated.DaBrainz

You'd learn your fvcking lesson, though. I guarantee that much.

Seriously, though, that's not what the supreme court is saying. They're giving departments the option. That doesn't mean a strip search will be used for every single instance.

IIRC, this wasn't illegal to begin with in ~40 states.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Australia.