Justices Approve Strip-Searches for Any Offense(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Justices Approve Strip-Searches for Any Offense
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
11 comments
I don't really know where you're going with this..
It's a response to arguments that the government has a legitimate need to strip search everyone, regardless of what the charges are against them.
The notion some guy pulled over for failure to pay a speeding ticket, or arrested for failure to pay child support, or arrested for having a dog off leash (really?) has paraphernalia shoved up his ass should seem terribly questionable. The argument the government has a need to strip search everyone, should give way to a realization that probably is not true.
As I point out, these are not my wild examples, but examples specifically mentioned by Justice Breyer in dissent.
The notion some guy pulled over for failure to pay a speeding ticket, or arrested for failure to pay child support, or arrested for having a dog off leash (really?) has paraphernalia shoved up his ass should seem terribly questionable. The argument the government has a need to strip search everyone, should give way to a realization that probably is not true.
As I point out, these are not my wild examples, but examples specifically mentioned by Justice Breyer in dissent.
IANAL, I'm a libertarian and against all forms of ad-hoc searches, but I think the government has a point here. As I understand this the goal is to control contraband and weapons entering the prison system. I don't see any way you could get around having to to search all those entering.
But that's a different situation than being searched for a crime. If I understood this correctly, this is simply an administrative search, not a search in search of evidence. Or put another way, if you get arrested for a joint and during the search the cops find cocaine, I'm not sure that would mean much of anything. (except you lose your cocaine)
But I'm probably completely off-base.
But that's a different situation than being searched for a crime. If I understood this correctly, this is simply an administrative search, not a search in search of evidence. Or put another way, if you get arrested for a joint and during the search the cops find cocaine, I'm not sure that would mean much of anything. (except you lose your cocaine)
But I'm probably completely off-base.
Sure, let's see what happens when you get strip searched for mundane things like being too noisy.
Isn't the issue, then, that you shouldn't be put in jail for such offences, rather than making arguments concerning strip searching?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
This applies especially and probably mostly to the police and government.
Police indirectly get more money for more arrests. Therefore, arrest more people.
You should be glad when you get a driving ticket. It's a proxy for an arrest or two that could have happened instead.
This applies especially and probably mostly to the police and government.
Police indirectly get more money for more arrests. Therefore, arrest more people.
You should be glad when you get a driving ticket. It's a proxy for an arrest or two that could have happened instead.
How about - both.
Idealistically this is something that I would support, because anyone who has been arrested and will be put into the general population of a jail carries several risks with them inside (the article mentions some of these: weapons, drugs, other contraband). But, that entire thought is predicated on a thought that I would argue is counter to reality: that people are only arrested when there is good cause to detain that individual.
Basically, if the entirety of the law enforcement and judicial system worked, then I wouldn't have a problem with this, but if I have to fear being arrested for taking a photograph of a police officer, then I feel that the strip-searching would apply to those who shouldn't necessarily be in jail in the first place...
Basically, if the entirety of the law enforcement and judicial system worked, then I wouldn't have a problem with this, but if I have to fear being arrested for taking a photograph of a police officer, then I feel that the strip-searching would apply to those who shouldn't necessarily be in jail in the first place...
The title is misleading; IANAL, but according to the article text, the Supreme Court approved that officials can search people before putting them into prison, only for offences that can put you into prison! I'm quite astonished that this wasn't the case already, i.e. they take your freedom, but they don't check what you're carrying with you?!?
It applies to general population of a jail too.
Let's say you are arrested in NYC. You can be taken to a holding cell at a local precinct. Then you are shuttled to downtown, to a holding cell in the court building. You go from being one person in a precinct cell to going into the "general population" of other people waiting to see a judge. Before being put in that larger holding cell, you will be subjected to a strip search now thanks to the Supreme Court. And if your offense is something as minor as not cleaning up your dog's poop? Is that fair?
Let's say you are arrested in NYC. You can be taken to a holding cell at a local precinct. Then you are shuttled to downtown, to a holding cell in the court building. You go from being one person in a precinct cell to going into the "general population" of other people waiting to see a judge. Before being put in that larger holding cell, you will be subjected to a strip search now thanks to the Supreme Court. And if your offense is something as minor as not cleaning up your dog's poop? Is that fair?
I think the real question is why do you get jailed for not cleaning your dog's poop. That would never happen in Europe (I hope).
You can board these precious airplanes by asking for a pat down (although discouraged?).
I'm clueless about the laws in the US. Can you go to jail for example if you pee in a park? Drive too fast? Are too drunk on the streets to find home? If any of these lead to a yes, do you think those people should be forced to strip in front of someone? Because they, obviously, are bad guys?
I'm clueless about the laws in the US. Can you go to jail for example if you pee in a park? Drive too fast? Are too drunk on the streets to find home? If any of these lead to a yes, do you think those people should be forced to strip in front of someone? Because they, obviously, are bad guys?
To answer your questions:
1) Public urination is a ticket (got one in college, many years ago).
2) Speeding is a ticket unless you are going excessively fast (100mph in 30mph zone; these numbers vary among states).
3) Too drunk on the street will get you taken to the drunk tank to sober up/ sleep it off (not jail).
1) Public urination is a ticket (got one in college, many years ago).
2) Speeding is a ticket unless you are going excessively fast (100mph in 30mph zone; these numbers vary among states).
3) Too drunk on the street will get you taken to the drunk tank to sober up/ sleep it off (not jail).
Sorry, but getting off with a ticket depends on what you look like and where you're doing it. You'd probably be outraged if a cop flagged you down and decided to frisk you, but that's what happens in many non-white neighborhoods in NYC every day, Constitution or not.
If I may play the devil's advocate here:
Can you be against this decision if you're not against the 'nude scanner' thing the TSA uses to inspect you closely, while virtually undressed?
And turned around, if the TSA can do it and no public outcry stops them, is this decision surprising? It seems this is just the slope letting gravity do most of the work here..?
Can you be against this decision if you're not against the 'nude scanner' thing the TSA uses to inspect you closely, while virtually undressed?
And turned around, if the TSA can do it and no public outcry stops them, is this decision surprising? It seems this is just the slope letting gravity do most of the work here..?
I wonder if in NYC all the people arrested from now on at Occupy Wall Street will be strip searched. I do not like this decision.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[In his concurrence] Chief Justice Roberts, quoting from an earlier decision, said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.’”
It's a bit late for that. The facts of this case speak for themselves:
Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” on indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
I have visited jails, as part of a film crew. they are grim places, and a lot of the people who inhabit them are, frankly, villains. I've also seen collections of confiscated weapons manufactured from scrap materials whose creativity and effectiveness would put most hackers to shame. I can see the pragmatic reasoning that led the court to err on the side of law enforcement officer safety, and indeed inmate safety.
To my mind, the problem is that the nature of Florence's treatment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment for a minor administrative violation. But legally speaking it wasn't cruel because it had a practical rather than a punitive basis; and it wasn't unusual because everyone is subjected to the same degree of inspection at those facilities; and he hadn't been punished, because he hadn't been convicted; and it wasn't relevant because his counsel (correctly) focused on on other constitutional protections. And this is the problem: our constitutional rights are embedded in a procedural framework so inflexible that innocent persons can be mistakenly subjected to the most degrading treatment, and find themselves without a legal remedy because of the legal equivalent of incorrectly scoped variable (not been convicted, therefore he hasn't been punished). this ruling is civil rights disaster, and the problem will get worse before it gets better.
Regular HNers will know that I'm usually on the side of precedent even in cases where I don't like the decision. I am still not sure what Mr Florence's attorney could or should have done differently, and it would hardly have been appropriate to argue that all detainess should be held in solitary confinement pending the disposition of their case, for example - some cases need time to resolve, and jails exist in the first place because society has an interest in detaining some kinds of possible criminals in advance of trial. I haven't read the full opinion or the briefs, nor have I read enough criminal procedure or constitutional law to come up with a good alternative; so I'm speaking from my gut instead of my head, which I don't like to do. But it seems to me that this exposes a weakness in our constitution's tendency to define procedures rather than interests. The reasoning is sound, but the outcome is unconscionable in a free society. I am deeply disappointed.
It's a bit late for that. The facts of this case speak for themselves:
Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” on indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
I have visited jails, as part of a film crew. they are grim places, and a lot of the people who inhabit them are, frankly, villains. I've also seen collections of confiscated weapons manufactured from scrap materials whose creativity and effectiveness would put most hackers to shame. I can see the pragmatic reasoning that led the court to err on the side of law enforcement officer safety, and indeed inmate safety.
To my mind, the problem is that the nature of Florence's treatment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment for a minor administrative violation. But legally speaking it wasn't cruel because it had a practical rather than a punitive basis; and it wasn't unusual because everyone is subjected to the same degree of inspection at those facilities; and he hadn't been punished, because he hadn't been convicted; and it wasn't relevant because his counsel (correctly) focused on on other constitutional protections. And this is the problem: our constitutional rights are embedded in a procedural framework so inflexible that innocent persons can be mistakenly subjected to the most degrading treatment, and find themselves without a legal remedy because of the legal equivalent of incorrectly scoped variable (not been convicted, therefore he hasn't been punished). this ruling is civil rights disaster, and the problem will get worse before it gets better.
Regular HNers will know that I'm usually on the side of precedent even in cases where I don't like the decision. I am still not sure what Mr Florence's attorney could or should have done differently, and it would hardly have been appropriate to argue that all detainess should be held in solitary confinement pending the disposition of their case, for example - some cases need time to resolve, and jails exist in the first place because society has an interest in detaining some kinds of possible criminals in advance of trial. I haven't read the full opinion or the briefs, nor have I read enough criminal procedure or constitutional law to come up with a good alternative; so I'm speaking from my gut instead of my head, which I don't like to do. But it seems to me that this exposes a weakness in our constitution's tendency to define procedures rather than interests. The reasoning is sound, but the outcome is unconscionable in a free society. I am deeply disappointed.
Like I said, I'm a libertarian. One of the reasons why is that we live in a society where there are so many laws that the police can and do arrest people for whatever they feel like. It's been this way probably forever, but recently it has gotten much, much worse.
Having said that, the question in front of the court begins with the man arriving at jail, not with the arrest. Perhaps there's another case that could be made about using arrests in a harassing manner, but I doubt it.
So the justices have to ask themselves a question: which is more important, keeping the system consistent or having compassion for this poor guy?
I'm an analytical person. My money is on keeping the system consistent, even if it's broken and this case is a bad example of what we aspire to be.
The system is screwed up enough as it is without SCOTUS running off and chasing every sob story that comes their way. If the courts start leading with their hearts, then the entire criminal justice system becomes a matter of who can make the best emotional case instead of what the law is. The chaos and harm just moves up to another level of dysfunction. A mostly self-consistent bad system is still better than a mostly inconsistent bad system.
I'm saddened the guy got treated like this. I wish there was some recourse. But in my unlearned, guesswork opinion the outcome is the only one the court had available, no matter how much you and I are disappointed with the larger state of society.
Having said that, the question in front of the court begins with the man arriving at jail, not with the arrest. Perhaps there's another case that could be made about using arrests in a harassing manner, but I doubt it.
So the justices have to ask themselves a question: which is more important, keeping the system consistent or having compassion for this poor guy?
I'm an analytical person. My money is on keeping the system consistent, even if it's broken and this case is a bad example of what we aspire to be.
The system is screwed up enough as it is without SCOTUS running off and chasing every sob story that comes their way. If the courts start leading with their hearts, then the entire criminal justice system becomes a matter of who can make the best emotional case instead of what the law is. The chaos and harm just moves up to another level of dysfunction. A mostly self-consistent bad system is still better than a mostly inconsistent bad system.
I'm saddened the guy got treated like this. I wish there was some recourse. But in my unlearned, guesswork opinion the outcome is the only one the court had available, no matter how much you and I are disappointed with the larger state of society.
I think you've made an error here. Florence's arrest was reasonable as far as it went. He had pled guilty 2 years earlier to obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon, and been fined, the fine being payable in installments. One of his payments was late, and an arrest warrant was issued. He made the payment soon afterwards, but the warrant was never cancelled. So the arresting officer checked his identity, found priors involving deadly weapons and an outstanding arrest warrant, and enforced the warrant.
My issues with this are that a) someone gets thrown into general population while an administrative issue is being resolved, and b) the nature of his apparent offense (unpaid fine, rather than an act of commission).
My issues with this are that a) someone gets thrown into general population while an administrative issue is being resolved, and b) the nature of his apparent offense (unpaid fine, rather than an act of commission).
NPR didn't mention the prior conviction had anything to do with a deadly weapon. If he's got that kind of background, I'm not sure what the outrage is for at all.
>>>But legally speaking it wasn't cruel because it had a practical rather than a punitive basis; and it wasn't unusual because everyone is subjected to the same degree of inspection at those facilities; and he hadn't been punished, because he hadn't been convicted; and it wasn't relevant because his counsel (correctly) focused on on other constitutional protections.
Wow. So a cop who brings you in because he had a bad day or doesn't like your skin tone and has you subjected to a strip search isn't punishment? Nor is it cruel? And because everyone is equally degraded, it isn't unusual? Look, you can spout whatever "The law says..." all you want, but this is not what I want my country to become.
Wow. So a cop who brings you in because he had a bad day or doesn't like your skin tone and has you subjected to a strip search isn't punishment? Nor is it cruel? And because everyone is equally degraded, it isn't unusual? Look, you can spout whatever "The law says..." all you want, but this is not what I want my country to become.
If you try following my train of thought, which is only a few paragraphs long, you'll see that I'm saying the law is deeply flawed.
Yes, I see that. But that middle part irked me too much.
Well, there's a difference between a positive (descriptive) statement of how things are, and a normative statement of how they should be. It's hard to have a constructive discussion of the latter when every statement of the former results in a derailment of the conversation.
Well, you're taking it personally rather than my being cranky about the wording that clearly described their point of view.
When you wrote Look, you can spout whatever "The law says..." all you want [...] then I assumed that your remarks were addressed to me, not to someone else. This exchange is becoming increasingly pointless.
This right here is another really annoying message board tic. Outrage trumps understanding, so much so that it's legitimate to rant at someone for not being outraged enough.
[deleted]
I'm confident that the vast majority of those who agree with this decision are white, and therefore believe (probably correctly) that it will never happen to them.
But if you're a darker-hued, equally law-abiding citizen ...
But if you're a darker-hued, equally law-abiding citizen ...
Last week, the cops came by for failure to pay child support (I had paid, in fact it's automatically deducted but my ex was playing games again.) As I saw the black and white pull up to the curb, I quickly shoved some spoons up my ass, damn, cops found those during the strip search.
Last night, my dog and I were playing in the park when I saw some cops wander by, yep, I got nabbed for walking the dog off the leash. Luckily before going out with the dog I had shoved a cell phone up my ass, but damn, the cops found that too.
Some potential examples cited by dissenting judges in the lower courts and by Justice Breyer on Monday included violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support.