Support NeoGAF

[Bitmap Frogs]

Never fear, Anthony Kennedy is very concerned about individual rights and liberties. He made that clear at the oral argument last week.

Gotta love republicans, the government can't be big and intrusive enough for what they like while it can't be smaller enough for what they don't like.

 

[Dude Abides]

Right. And the SC did not prevent strip searches from being banned. They simply preserved the legality of strip searches in cases where the local government determines it to be reasonable.

Of course, other cases could present more of a challenge - for example, if the law was applied inequally based on race or some other factor, there could be a lawsuit based on the 14th amendment.

The point of judicial review is that an independent person is supposed to make sure it actually is reasonable.

 

[Open Source]

Not for fundamental liberties. That's what the Constitution is there for.

Not being strip searched when you get arrested is not a fundamental liberty, if you agree that strip searches are reasonable in some cases.

I notice that there is no uproar from those who care so much about civil rights when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

For example, http://volokh.com/2012/04/02/district-court-upholds-illinois-total-ban-on-carrying-guns/

Some people like to ignore the text of the Constitution when it suits them, while at the same time reading between, above, below, under, and around the lines to find their own beliefs enshrined in it. To them, constitutionality is just another word for "something I agree with".

Sad.

 

[Dead Man]

Right. And the SC did not prevent strip searches from being banned. They simply preserved the legality of strip searches in cases where the local government determines it to be reasonable.

Of course, other cases could present more of a challenge - for example, if the law was applied inequally based on race or some other factor, there could be a lawsuit based on the 14th amendment.

Ugh. You're really not getting it. It is not an either or situation. The could have ruled against blanket strip searches policies and still left policies that were situational in place. They have just decided that all strip searches are reasonable and they cannot second guess corrections and police. Now, if one occurs that was unreasonable, what is the highest court going to say? Meh?

Not being strip searched when you get arrested is not a fundamental liberty, if you agree that strip searches are reasonable in some cases.

I notice that there is no uproar from those who care so much about civil rights when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

For example, http://volokh.com/2012/04/02/district-court-upholds-illinois-total-ban-on-carrying-guns/

Some people like to ignore the text of the Constitution when it suits them, while at the same time reading between, above, below, under, and around the lines to find their own beliefs enshrined in it. To them, constitutionality is just another word for "something I agree with".

Sad.

Don't change the subject, stick one bad argument at a time.

 

[Dude Abides]

Not being strip searched when you get arrested is not a fundamental liberty, if you agree that strip searches are reasonable in some cases.

I notice that there is no uproar from those who care so much about civil rights when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

For example, http://volokh.com/2012/04/02/district-court-upholds-illinois-total-ban-on-carrying-guns/

Some people like to ignore the text of the Constitution when it suits them, while at the same time reading between, above, below, under, and around the lines to find their own beliefs enshrined in it. To them, constitutionality is just another word for "something I agree with".

Sad.

The whole point of this case is that it is now per se reasonable in all cases.

There's no need to dodge the issue by bringing up irrelevant bullshit about guns. Sad.

 

[Open Source]

The point of judicial review is that an independent person is supposed to make sure it actually is reasonable.

And you think the SC should define a nationwide standard for what is reasonable and what is not? What may be unreasonable at a jail with no history of contraband or violence may be reasonable at a jail plagued by weapons, drugs, cell phones, violence, etc.

Therefore, asking the SC to set a uniform standard of reasonability is impractical at best and a usurpation of legislative power at worst.

 

[Dude Abides]

And you think the SC should define a nationwide standard for what is reasonable and what is not? What may be unreasonable at a jail with no history of contraband or violence may be reasonable at a jail plagued by weapons, drugs, cell phones, violence, etc.

Therefore, asking the SC to set a uniform standard of reasonability is impractical at best and a usurpation of legislative power at worst.

The SC sets standards for what is and isn't a reasonable search all the time. What do you think a search warrant is and how do you think they are obtained?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

And you think the SC should define a nationwide standard for what is reasonable and what is not? What may be unreasonable at a jail with no history of contraband or violence may be reasonable at a jail plagued by weapons, drugs, cell phones, violence, etc.

Therefore, asking the SC to set a uniform standard of reasonability is impractical at best and a usurpation of legislative power at worst.

No, but they could have said it's not reasonable for low level offenses.

 

[Open Source]

The whole point of this case is that it is now per se reasonable in all cases.

There's no need to dodge the issue by bringing up irrelevant bullshit about guns. Sad.

The SC declined to set a standard for "reasonable" in this case. That doesn't prevent the legislative branch from doing so. The SC would not strike down a statewide requirement that "reasonable suspicion" be established before a strip search can occur.

 

[Angry Fork]

Just because I say something is Constitutional doesn't mean that I say it's right.

In terms of "human rights", I think that blanket bans on practices that are quite reasonable in some cases are rarely good. What about the "human rights" of people who get stuck with a contraband shiv? How many uncomfortable strip searches is a human life worth?

The likelihood of someone being killed by a shank hid in someones anus isn't high enough to justify strip searching everyone. 99% of people shouldn't be subjected to sub-human treatment for the sake of "protecting" the random shanking 'victim'.

US prisons also do not care about it's prisoners. They're doing this in order to strengthen the power of the racist, evil "correctional" officers. Everything in prison is mind games and exploitation between the oppressed and the oppressor. This legislation just gives more power to jail/prison authorities. It is not there to help or save anyone except those already in power.

 

[Dude Abides]

The SC declined to set a standard for "reasonable" in this case. That doesn't prevent the legislative branch from doing so. The SC would not strike down a statewide requirement that "reasonable suspicion" be established before a strip search can occur.

That is not the point. The court, not state legislatures, is supposed to decide what the 4th amendment requires.

 

[Open Source]

No, but they could have said it's not reasonable for low level offenses.

Asking the supreme court to clearly define what constitutes a low level offense and to carve out exceptions (convicted felon, etc.) would border on insanity, really. It would no doubt result in a steady stream of lawsuits for varying circumstances that weren't exactly covered to the letter, being resolved in different ways in different courts. Again, a task much more suited to legislatures.

 

[ErasureAcer]

This definitely won't be abused.

Mam, you failed to make a complete stop at the STOP sign. I'm going to have to touch your breasts, buttocks and thighs. Yeah, you're right.

 

[Open Source]

The likelihood of someone being killed by a shank hid in someones anus isn't high enough to justify strip searching everyone. 99% of people shouldn't be subjected to sub-human treatment for the sake of "protecting" the random shanking 'victim'.

US prisons also do not care about it's prisoners. They're doing this in order to strengthen the power of the racist, evil "correctional" officers. Everything in prison is mind games and exploitation between the oppressed and the oppressor. This legislation just gives more power to jail/prison authorities. It is not there to help or save anyone except those already in power.

I agree about the prisons, for sure.

But I don't think that ensuring that no contraband enters a jail is unreasonable.

On the practical side, I'll ask again, how many strip searches per prevented death is too many? If 100 people have to be strip searched to prevent someone from dying, is that worth it? 1000? 1000000?

 

[Open Source]

Mam, you failed to make a complete stop at the STOP sign. I'm going to have to touch your breasts, buttocks and thighs. Yeah, you're right.

Courts have consistently ruled that strip searches by the opposite gender are a violation of civil rights.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I agree about the prisons, for sure.

But I don't think that ensuring that no contraband enters a jail is unreasonable.

On the practical side, I'll ask again, how many strip searches per prevented death is too many? If 100 people have to be strip searched to prevent someone from dying, is that worth it? 1000? 1000000?

Contraband enters prison mostly through corrupt guards.

Somehow I don't expect every prison guard getting strip searched as part of their daily routine...

 

[Zzoram]

Cops are already nearly impossible to charge with any misconduct.

Now they can pull over any speeding hot chick, strip search her for fun, and it's all legal.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Asking the supreme court to clearly define what constitutes a low level offense and to carve out exceptions (convicted felon, etc.) would border on insanity, really. It would no doubt result in a steady stream of lawsuits for varying circumstances that weren't exactly covered to the letter, being resolved in different ways in different courts. Again, a task much more suited to legislatures.

Are most offenses categorized into classes?

 

[ErasureAcer]

Courts have consistently ruled that strip searches by the opposite gender are a violation of civil rights.

The Supreme Court too? And how many female officers are there in Hicksville, USA? Probably none.

 

[Open Source]

The SC sets standards for what is and isn't a reasonable search all the time. What do you think a search warrant is and how do you think they are obtained?

You're right that judges (not the SC, so much) have to rule on "probable cause" and the like quite often.

Are you saying that all prisoners should be held in solitary after being arrested until a judge can approve their being strip searched? What would the criteria be for approval? "Reasonable suspicion"? What percentage of contraband would that catch? How do you balance that against the rights of the potential victims that result from the contraband missed?

 

[Dude Abides]

Courts have consistently ruled that strip searches by the opposite gender are a violation of civil rights.

I think you mean one court and inconsistently.

You're right that judges (not the SC, so much) have to rule on "probable cause" and the like quite often.

Are you saying that all prisoners should be held in solitary after being arrested until a judge can approve their being strip searched? What would the criteria be for approval? "Reasonable suspicion"? What percentage of contraband would that catch? How do you balance that against the rights of the potential victims that result from the contraband missed?

They can do it after the fact - if the search was unreasonable, the arrestee has a s. 1983 claim. Everything seemed to be going ok under the reasonable suspicion standard. I don't see why it's unworkable.

 

[Open Source]

The Supreme Court too? And how many female officers are there in Hicksville, USA? Probably none.

Yes, except in the case of emergency. They declined to hear a case out of the 9th Circuit, who ruled in favor of the plaintiff suing the Sheriff's Department.

Hicksville, USA has to have a female on staff to perform those searches. However, as far as I know, males searching females was not permissible anywhere in the country, anyway. The court case involved a female searching a male.

 

[Open Source]

I think you mean one court and inconsistently.



They can do it after the fact - if the search was unreasonable, the arrestee has a s. 1983 claim. Everything seemed to be going ok under the reasonable suspicion standard. I don't see why it's unworkable.

Not really. Contraband is a major problem in many jails and prisons, and rather silly techniques, like mandatory showers under observation were used in lieu of a strip search, because how do you really establish reasonable suspicion that someone has a bag of cocaine up his ass or a cell phone tucked under his chode?

 

[Dude Abides]

Not really. Contraband is a major problem in many jails and prisons, and rather silly techniques, like mandatory showers under observation were used in lieu of a strip search, because how do you really establish reasonable suspicion that someone has a bag of cocaine up his ass or a cell phone tucked under his chode?

If he was arrested for distribution or possession with intent to distribute I'd imagine that would establish reasonable suspicion.

Also, the SC not granting cert on the case is not the same as them ruling on the issue. Your reply to ErasureAcer seemed to suggest they are equivalent.

 

[DR2K]

So what happens when you refuse?

 

[Raxus]

So what happens when you refuse?

Spread 'em.

 

[Slappers Only]

Courts have consistently ruled that strip searches by the opposite gender are a violation of civil rights.

This operates under a lot of assumptions about sexual identity. The internet should get worked up over this.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Its really another reason to stay voting for the lesser Evil(Democrats)

Having Conservative like these appointed for life at this branch of gov't if fuckin terrible

 

[GJS]

Cops are already nearly impossible to charge with any misconduct.

Now they can pull over any speeding hot chick, strip search her for fun, and it's all legal.

No they can't, they would have to arrest her and make her spend the night in jail to do that, and that rarely happens for speeding offences. If cops started abusing it to do that, it wouldn't stay hidden very long when everyone suddenly starts getting arrested for speeding.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Some more details on the specific case in question: No Crime, but an Arrest and Two Strip-Searches

Albert W. Florence believes that black men who drive nice cars in New Jersey run a risk of being questioned by the police. For that reason, he kept handy a 2003 document showing he had paid a court-imposed fine stemming from a traffic offense, just in case.

It did not seem to help.

In March 2005, Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled it over for speeding. His wife, April, was driving. His 4-year-old son, Shamar, was in the back.

The trooper ran a records search, and he found an outstanding warrant based on the supposedly unpaid fine. Mr. Florence showed the trooper the document, but he was arrested anyway.

A failure to pay a fine is not a crime. It is, rather, what New Jersey law calls a nonindictable offense. Mr. Florence was nonetheless held for eight days in two counties on a charge of civil contempt before matters were sorted out.

Guy did NOTHING.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Remember when the police were there to serve and protect? When they wore blue instead of black? When they didn't dress like soldiers?

I too want no involvement with police.

 

[Stinkles]

Link



###

As long as muslins don't force me to have free healthcare.