| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:40 am Post subject: Conservative majority allows strip searches for minor crimes |
 |
|
| necn.com wrote: | WASHINGTON (AP) — Jailers may perform invasive strip searches on people arrested even for minor offenses, an ideologically divided Supreme Court ruled Monday, the conservative majority declaring that security trumps privacy in an often dangerous environment.
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled against a New Jersey man who was strip searched in two county jails following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine that he had, in reality, paid.
The decision resolved a conflict among lower courts about how to balance security and privacy. Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, lower courts generally prohibited routine strip searches for minor offenses. In recent years, however, courts have allowed jailers more discretion to maintain security, and the high court ruling ratified those decisions.
In this case, Albert Florence's nightmare began when the sport utility vehicle driven by his pregnant wife was pulled over for speeding. He was a passenger; his 4-year-old son was in the backseat.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said the circumstances of the arrest were of little importance. Instead, Kennedy said, Florence's entry into the general jail population gave guards the authorization to force him to strip naked and expose his mouth, nose, ears and genitals to a visual search in case he was hiding anything. |
Say goodbye to the Fourth Amendment. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
That his wife was driving and speeding is certainly relevant to report, but his 4y/o son being in the back seat is completely irrelevant, unless the author has an agenda. Notice not any mention of why he was arrested.
That said, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Ice T Cop Killer and Body Count
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Fourth Amendment was already dead but this sure seems like a poor decision. Basically the conservatives said, "We trust police not to abuse this." And why wouldn't they trust the police? Who could imagine police abusing the power to sexually humiliate people? It's not like police routinely threaten people with prison rape or anything...
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Child porn collecting pimps (TSA agents) have been acting like they've had this power for a couple of years now.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This will go on until either genetics is advanced enough to breed the characteristics out of people that make them vote the Republicunt party, like entrepreneurship and self-reliance and replace them with sound Democrat principles like a desire to pay more taxes and asking the government what to do, or until we find an efficient way to annihilate all of the Republicunt race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | This will go on until either genetics is advanced enough to breed the characteristics out of people that make them vote the Republicunt party, like entrepreneurship and self-reliance and replace them with sound Democrat principles like a desire to pay more taxes and asking the government what to do, or until we find an efficient way to annihilate all of the Republicunt race. |
Thank you for your insight.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | This will go on until either genetics is advanced enough to breed the characteristics out of people that make them vote the Republicunt party, like entrepreneurship and self-reliance and replace them with sound Democrat principles like a desire to pay more taxes and asking the government what to do, or until we find an efficient way to annihilate all of the Republicunt race. |
Wow, for a non-citizen, you seem to really negative opinion of Obama.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| um... misleading and a half... this guy was arrested and to be held in gen-pop for a failure to appear on another offense. while it's not murder, it's also not your typical overnight stint in the local lockup. they did it during the de-lousing process. otherwise he'd be able to sneak drugs/weapons into gen-pop. if you actually read through the opinion it does make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speeddemon
Apprentice
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 162
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | um... misleading and a half... this guy was arrested and to be held in gen-pop for a failure to appear on another offense. while it's not murder, it's also not your typical overnight stint in the local lockup. they did it during the de-lousing process. otherwise he'd be able to sneak drugs/weapons into gen-pop. if you actually read through the opinion it does make sense. |
++
I'm all for limiting police overreach, but does anyone really expect the police to have to get a warrant to search every person arrested before they can put them in jail? Where do you put these people while you try and get a judge at 2am? Put them all in a room together? How do you keep weapons out of that room so they don't gang up on someone?
_________________
Cats are deadly animals. If you stick your nose up their crotch and snort their piss, THEY CAN KILL YOU!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Next time you get pulled over for speeding or a seatbelt violation or a faulty brake light expect to hear, "Either you let me search your car or I'm going to arrest you and have you cavity searched." Or maybe you'll get caught jaywalking and the police will threaten the same if you don't consent to a search. This is bad news.
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | Next time you get pulled over for speeding or a seatbelt violation or a faulty brake light expect to hear, "Either you let me search your car or I'm going to arrest you and have you cavity searched." Or maybe you'll get caught jaywalking and the police will threaten the same if you don't consent to a search. This is bad news. |
So arrestees should be allowed to carry anything they can conceal into a prison? That doesn't seem viable.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | So arrestees should be allowed to carry anything they can conceal into a prison? That doesn't seem viable. |
No, but I'm not arguing that no one should be searched. I'm arguing for striking a balance that gives a little more weight to privacy than does this SC decision. From the article, "Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, lower courts generally prohibited routine strip searches for minor offenses." Seems like a more balanced approach was considered viable in quite recent history.
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see them going through the trouble of a strip search for someone who is going to be in the overnight tank. Not unless the person was a troublemaker, has a track record, or otherwise provides a reason. Chris Rock has en excellent PSA for how to handle being pulled over. Something in between search warrant and every guest gets a free strip search would be preferred, but there doesn't seem to be much of an option. Either you trust the police, or you don't. And if you don't, then the problem isn't their decision to perform a strip search.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | I don't see them going through the trouble of a strip search for someone who is going to be in the overnight tank. Not unless the person was a troublemaker, has a track record, or otherwise provides a reason. Chris Rock has en excellent PSA for how to handle being pulled over. Something in between search warrant and every guest gets a free strip search would be preferred, but there doesn't seem to be much of an option. Either you trust the police, or you don't. And if you don't, then the problem isn't their decision to perform a strip search. |
I can't say for other locales, but at both the local city jail, and the county jail, strip and bend over and spread your butt cheeks searches are mandatory before the prisoner is put in a cell. If some cop is pissed at you, he can throw you in jail with the full knowledge that charges will be dropped, yet he knows the humiliation and degradation you will go through until your release. That is the power trip that most get caught up in.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | um... misleading and a half... this guy was arrested and to be held in gen-pop for a failure to appear on another offense. |
No, he was held for failure to pay a fine, which he had actually paid:
| SC wrote: | | In 2003, after he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later; but, for some unexplained reason, the warrant remained in a statewide computer database.Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jersey, petitioner and his wife were stopped in their automobile by a state trooper. Based on the outstanding warrant in the computer system, the officer arrested petitioner and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center. He was held there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility. It is not the arrest or confinement but the search process at each jail that gives rise to the claims before the Court. |
| big dave wrote: | | ...while it's not murder, it's also not your typical overnight stint in the local lockup. |
No, in fact, it was 6 days locked up, in two different jails, without committing any crime.
| big dave wrote: | | ...they did it during the de-lousing process. |
Not really. In one of the jails, that was part of it, but not in the other:
| SC wrote: | | The Essex County Correctional Facility, where petitioner was taken after six days, is the largest county jail in New Jersey. App. 70a. It admits more than 25,000 in- mates each year and houses about 1,000 gang members at any given time. When petitioner was transferred there, all arriving detainees passed through a metal detector and waited in a group holding cell for a more thorough search.When they left the holding cell, they were instructed to remove their clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband. Apparently without touching the detainees, an officer looked at their ears,nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arms, armpits, and other body openings. Id., at 57a–59a; App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a–144a. This policy applied regardless of the circumstances of the arrest, the suspected offense, or the detainee’s behavior, demeanor, or criminal history. Petitioner alleges he was required to lift his genitals, turnaround, and cough in a squatting position as part of the process. After a mandatory shower, during which his clothes were inspected, petitioner was admitted to the facility. App. 3a–4a, 52a, 258a. He was released the next day, when the charges against him were dismissed. |
| SC wrote: | | Burlington County jail procedures required every arrestee to shower with a delousing agent. Officers would check arrestees for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as they disrobed. App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a–56a. Petitioner claims he was also instructed to open hismouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. (It is not clear whether this last step waspart of the normal practice. See ibid.) |
| big dave wrote: | | otherwise he'd be able to sneak drugs/weapons into gen-pop. if you actually read through the opinion it does make sense. |
You might want to try actually reading it before you say that.
Basically, the majority's opinion was that we have to balance the individuals right to be free from unreasonable search with the safety of prison inmates and workers. Reasonable enough. Then they state that prison officials claim that strip searches of everyone is necessary, and conclude with a who-are-we-to-second-guess-them.
| SC wrote: | | Persons arrested for minor offenses may be among the detainees processed at these facilities. This is, in part, a consequence of the exercise of state authority that was the subject of Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318 (2001). Atwater addressed the perhaps more fundamental question of who may be deprived of liberty and taken to jail in the first place. The case involved a woman who was arrested after a police officer noticed neither she nor her children were wearing their seat belts. The arrestee argued the Fourth Amendment prohibited her custodial arrest without a warrant when an offense could not result in jail time and there was no compelling need for immediate detention. Id., at 346. The Court held that a Fourth Amendment restriction on this power would put officers in an “almost impossible spot.” Id., at 350. Their ability to arrest a suspect would depend in some cases on the precise weight of drugs in his pocket, whether he was a repeat offender, and the scope of what counted as a compelling need to detain someone. Id., at 348–349. The Court rejected the proposition that the Fourth Amendment barred custodial arrests in a set of these cases as a matter of constitutional law. It ruled, based on established principles, that officers may make an arrest based upon probable cause to believe the person has committed a criminal offense in their presence. See id., at 354. The Court stated that “a responsible Fourth Amendment balance is not well served by standards requiring sensitive, case-by-case determinations of government need, lest every discretionary judgment in the field be converted into an occasion for constitutional review.” Id., at 347. |
Compare to just a small portion of the dissent, which actually looks at the data, and comes to a very different conclusion:
| SC wrote: | | The lack of justification for such a strip search is less obvious but no less real in respect to the third interest, namely that of detecting contraband. The information demonstrating the lack of justification is of three kinds.First, there are empirically based conclusions reached inspecific cases. The New York Federal District Court, to which I have referred, conducted a study of 23,000 persons admitted to the Orange County correctional facility between 1999 and 2003. Dodge, 282 F. Supp. 2d, at 69.These 23,000 persons underwent a strip search of the kind described, supra, at 1. Of these 23,000 persons, the court wrote, “the County encountered three incidents of drugs recovered from an inmate’s anal cavity and two incidents of drugs falling from an inmate’s underwear during the course of a strip search.” 282 F. Supp. 2d, at 69. The court added that in four of these five instances there may have been “reasonable suspicion” to search, leaving only one instance in 23,000 in which the strip search policy “arguably” detected additional contraband. Id., at 70. The study is imperfect, for search standards changed during the time it was conducted. Id., at 50–51. But the large number of inmates, the small number of “incidents,” and the District Court’s own conclusions make the study probative though not conclusive. |
There is lots more like that in the dissent, but I didn't want to format it all.
This is my favorite part of the majority decision though:
| SC wrote: | | People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals. Cf. Clements v. Logan, 454 U. S. 1304, 1305 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers) (deputy at a detention center shot by misdemeanant who had not been strip searched). Hours after the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh was stopped by a state trooper who noticed he was driving without a license plate. Johnston, Suspect Won’t Answer Any Questions, N. Y. Times, Apr. 25, 1995, p. A1. Police stopped serial killer Joel Rifkin for the same reason.McQuiston, Confession Used to Portray Rifkin as Methodical Killer, N. Y. Times, Apr. 26, 1994, p. B6. One of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. The Terrorists: Hijacker Got a Speeding Ticket, N. Y. Times, Jan. 8, 2002, p. A12. Reasonable correctional officials could conclude these uncertainties mean they must conduct the same thorough search of everyone who will be admitted to their facilities. |
OMG, occasionally terrorists break mundane laws. Therefore we must strip-search anyone who breaks mundate laws. Following this logic, terrorists occasionally drive cars, so we should also strip-search anyone who drives a car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | Either you trust the police, or you don't. And if you don't, then the problem isn't their decision to perform a strip search. |
What is the problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| speeddemon wrote: | | big dave wrote: | | um... misleading and a half... this guy was arrested and to be held in gen-pop for a failure to appear on another offense. while it's not murder, it's also not your typical overnight stint in the local lockup. they did it during the de-lousing process. otherwise he'd be able to sneak drugs/weapons into gen-pop. if you actually read through the opinion it does make sense. |
++
I'm all for limiting police overreach, but does anyone really expect the police to have to get a warrant to search every person arrested before they can put them in jail? |
That wasn't the issue. The only question before the supreme court was whether "reasonable suspicion" was before a strip search could be performed.
Even if the supreme court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a cop or a jail worker could still strip search anyone they wanted without a warrant, as long as they could argue that they had reasonable suspicion to do so.
| Quote: | | Where do you put these people while you try and get a judge at 2am? Put them all in a room together? How do you keep weapons out of that room so they don't gang up on someone? |
Nobody is arguing that those arrested for serious offenses shouldn't be searched. The question is for "non-indictable" offenses, such as failure to pay a fine or driving without a seat-belt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | dmitchell wrote: | | Next time you get pulled over for speeding or a seatbelt violation or a faulty brake light expect to hear, "Either you let me search your car or I'm going to arrest you and have you cavity searched." Or maybe you'll get caught jaywalking and the police will threaten the same if you don't consent to a search. This is bad news. |
So arrestees should be allowed to carry anything they can conceal into a prison? That doesn't seem viable. |
That is probably why nobody is arguing this position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| richk449 wrote: | | big dave wrote: | | um... misleading and a half... this guy was arrested and to be held in gen-pop for a failure to appear on another offense. |
No, he was held for failure to pay a fine, which he had actually paid:
| SC wrote: | | In 2003, after he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later; but, for some unexplained reason, the warrant remained in a statewide computer database.Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jersey, petitioner and his wife were stopped in their automobile by a state trooper. Based on the outstanding warrant in the computer system, the officer arrested petitioner and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center. He was held there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility. It is not the arrest or confinement but the search process at each jail that gives rise to the claims before the Court. |
|
enforcement hearings don't magically happen on their own. failure to appear at an enforcement hearing is not only another offense, but it is a criminal offense punishable (via contempt adjudication if it's not statutory) typically up to 6 months in jail without any sort of jury review. i've been present for the issuance of easily over a thousand of these bench warrants.
that last sentence in your quote does not mean what you think it does. the entire remainder of your response is either legally irrelevant and in the case of the delousing, you strangely cited the portion that backs my point. your concern about reasonable suspicion is further misplaced as it is evident by your response you don't understand the legal concept of PC chaining. courts tend to gloss over the details of first year law school courses.
you know how geeks get angry when old politicians and big content dicks talk about technology... you know, because they're clueless but REALLY adamant that they're right? there are tens of thousands of cases that put this in context that aren't even cited in this case. reading non-lawyer blogs and even a handful of cases doesn't remotely cut it. go to a top tier law school where you're reading easily 1500+ pages of cases for a single course in a single semester. then go to trial a couple hundred times... and i've barely scratched the surface in my career. normally, when some unqualified person spouts off about shit they clearly have no clue about, i won't even waste my time, but you're an OTW regular, so i figured i'd at least give you the courtesy of a response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | Next time you get pulled over for speeding or a seatbelt violation or a faulty brake light expect to hear, "Either you let me search your car or I'm going to arrest you and have you cavity searched." Or maybe you'll get caught jaywalking and the police will threaten the same if you don't consent to a search. This is bad news. |
Agent Fleming (Looking at group of Senior Citizens): "These people know something. I want full cavity searches. Everyone. Go deep on 'em."
-- Beavis & Butthead Do America
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Old School wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | I don't see them going through the trouble of a strip search for someone who is going to be in the overnight tank. Not unless the person was a troublemaker, has a track record, or otherwise provides a reason. Chris Rock has en excellent PSA for how to handle being pulled over. Something in between search warrant and every guest gets a free strip search would be preferred, but there doesn't seem to be much of an option. Either you trust the police, or you don't. And if you don't, then the problem isn't their decision to perform a strip search. |
I can't say for other locales, but at both the local city jail, and the county jail, strip and bend over and spread your butt cheeks searches are mandatory before the prisoner is put in a cell. If some cop is pissed at you, he can throw you in jail with the full knowledge that charges will be dropped, yet he knows the humiliation and degradation you will go through until your release. That is the power trip that most get caught up in. |
it depends. usually if it's a minor offense, they throw you in overnight, you get a patdown and that's it. they don't even change your clothes.
in this case, the computer records showed that the guy had a 2 year old FTA bench warrant. if caught, those guys often get held for the local minimum (which can easily range 20-30 days) which usually makes them eligible for gen-pop.
also, if you do get an bench warrant (especially for FTA), it doesn't automatically disappear just because you paid some fine. you still have an outstanding FTA "rule" or offense which is not answered for, and you have to get a judge to quash the warrant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | Next time you get pulled over for speeding or a seatbelt violation or a faulty brake light expect to hear, "Either you let me search your car or I'm going to arrest you and have you cavity searched." Or maybe you'll get caught jaywalking and the police will threaten the same if you don't consent to a search. This is bad news. |
because it only takes 1 case for the defendant to be recording the conversation, and next thing you know, the officer is charged with perjury, sexual abuse and more, and now he has to register as a sexual offender. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A "strip search" does not involve a "cavity probe" unless it says so.
A strip search is nothing more than taking your clothes off, and being told to "spread your toes apart... okay, run you fingers through your hair... okay, lift your nut-sack... okay, turn around, bend over and pull your butt-cheeks apart... okay, stand up, lift your right foot... lift your left foot... alright, get dressed."
That's typical of being put temporarily (i.e., more than overnight) into something like County Jail, which generally doesn't happen unless you've been denied or can't make bail, which generally doesn't happen unless you've committed a serious felony.
In some metropolitan areas during a crowded period (like New Orleans during Mardis Gras or various Spring Break locations) you might have to undergo a strip search just because you're being held overnight (e.g., for a drunk and disorderly or something), because they had maxed out the capacity of their holding tank and had to move people into the short-term population.
A cavity search is more typical of being incarcerated for a lengthy stay, which generally doesn't happen unless you've been convicted and sentenced to serve time in prison.
While the potential for abuse is real and obvious, people are not being subjected to a cavity search for a traffic violation or minor offense. While I'm sure it's humiliating, I'd rather go through a cavity search than be slashed with a razor by some guy on PCP. I also wouldn't want to have the job of performing strip searches, especially ones including a cavity search.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tylerwylie
Guru
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 455
Location: /US/Illinois/Champaign
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The real crime
_________________
"Government is to society, what rape is to lovemaking" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | because it only takes 1 case for the defendant to be recording the conversation, and next thing you know, the officer is charged with perjury, sexual abuse and more, and now he has to register as a sexual offender. |
What perjury? What are you talking about?
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
