Supreme Court allows strip searches for any offense

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by mongrel, Apr 2, 2012.

  1. mongrel Member

    Protesters that get arrested have something special waiting for you now. The supreme court said the cops can strip search you for any reason. Now, before you say to yourself "I'm a law-abiding citizen. This only affects criminals", you should read about the case that started this lawsuit.



    Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Offense

  2. Zak McKracken Member

    guy was speeding + had an outstanding warrant
    It may have been in error, but the cops had no obvious way of knowing this at the time of arrest, so they were acting in "good faith" that it was legit.

    It's unfortunate that they went all hard-ass on his ass, but it sounds like the real screwup was somewhere in the DMV database. A pity you can't sue databases for negligence, or willful malice.
    • Like Like x 5
  3. Anonymous Member

    They said you can strip search prisoners. Prisoners. Already in custody people. Like, have been arrested and are going to jail. Why is this a problem?
    • Like Like x 2
  4. adhocrat Member

    because anyone can be arrested for most anything, like selling lemonade. So if you break a stupid law that makes no sense you are now subject to sexual abuse. Or you are protesting and the cops believe the latest scientology lie, they arrest you on that basis, and then strip search you.
    Yep, makes total sense to me.


    Laws like this simply take away common sense and substitute 'rules' that must be followed, like a brainless automaton.
    Yep, just what we need, strip searches because some cop is afraid to do what we pay him to do.
    Bah, this is just more propaganda in the continuing war on people. They want us to accept heinous crimes as the norm, as long as they are done for our 'safety'. Another front on the TSA 'sexual abuse for our protection' racket.

    Just more "But won't you please think of the children" only now, we are the ones groomed for the part of the children.
    • Like Like x 5
  5. mongrel Member

    Being arrested and convicted are two entirely different things. How many anons were arrested on bullshit complaints? And don't you see how easily this could be abused to stifle legitimate protest?
  6. Anonymous Member

    No, I don't, but you go right ahead and read into this.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Anon enjoys Freedom Fondles
  8. amaX Member

    i was strip searched when i was arrested. had to do the whole spread 'em and cough. not easy for an old, broken down hag like meself. was not pleasant and the two guards kicked my sandals around like a soccer ball while snickering at my bare, ugly backside. do you like this post, Antonio?

    • Like Like x 1
  9. I've been to jail and strip searched, it's not a big a deal. They just glance at you for a couple seconds. It's not like they tell you to turn around, bend over and spread your cheeks open like the mainstream media has scared everybody into believing. They have way too many people to process to conduct such an invasive search.

    Prison strip searches are a different story though.
  10. Anonymous Member

    I LOL from far away.

    Land of the free. Meh.
  11. Herro Member

    It's an interesting ruling. It looks like the majority opinion was based upon Turner v. Safley, which held that infringements upon inmates Constitutional rights may be upheld if such infringements are reasonably related to the prison's ability to operate safely and effectively. The majority opinion agreed with the prison's argument that a search of all incoming inmates was necessary to maintain security by screening for disease and preventing smuggling of contraband into the facilities. This was then related to several previous cases in which courts held that limiting searches to specific categories of inmates effectively impaired the effectiveness of the search- arguing that having a category of inmates exempt from searches provided a means to circumvent screening procedures. The majority is arguing that infringements of inmates Constitutional rights are permitted when they are "reasonably related" (from Turner) to a prison's ability to safely function and that screenings of all incoming inmates are important to the safe operation of prisons, thus these searches are permissible.

    The dissenting opinion appears to rest on the assumption that the searches to which inmates are subjected go beyond disrobing and showering in view of guards during intake and involve lifting of the genitals and exposing the anal cavity for males and for females there is the additional requirement of squatting to reveal the vaginal cavity. They concede that these invasive procedures can be considered a reasonable way of preventing individuals from smuggling contraband but argue that the invasiveness of the search means that there should be a corresponding reason to suspect the inmate to be more likely than others to smuggle contraband. They cite Bell v Wolfish which held that searches of prisoners may be permissible under different circumstances than for citizens in general but that those searches must still be "reasonable" within the context of the prison environment. Thus the dissenting opinion argues that invasive searches must be considered on a case by case basis and that the nonviolent and non drug related charge of the plantiff meant that subjecting him to such an invasive search was unreasonable and thus a violation of his 4th amendment rights.

    So what seems to be at issue here really is whether all inmates need to be subjected to searches in order for searches to effectively prevent smuggling of contraband into prisons. If all inmates need to be searched in order for screening to be effective, then it would appear that the majority was correct in its decision. If however screening can still reasonably work even with people knowing that inmates charged with certain types of crimes will not be searched, then I think that we can argue that the dissenting opinion is correct. So I guess really what we would want to know is how effective screening procedures are and whether restricting screening to only certain inmates eliminates their effectiveness.
    • Like Like x 5
  12. RightOn Member

    wait... wtf?
    you bumped into someone because they stepped in your path.
    I assume that when you were arrested you did go peacefully?
    And then they strip searched you when you got to jail?
    Please tell me it was female guards at least?
  13. Anonymous Member

    Welcome to the perpetual version of Midnight Express... only fleeing to Canada or Mexico won't make you any difference...
  14. amaX Member

    it was female guards. it was a felony charge. they strip search everyone who is arrested on a felony.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Sorry to hear... but as in the OP, now the SCOTUS have decided that for ANY arrest one can be violated.

    I'll never return to the USSR USA, now... not that I was planning to commit any crimes there.
  16. RightOn Member

    well that is a small relief about the guards being female.
    ahh thats right it was a felony charge
    A felony charge for bumping into someone who stepped into your path.
    how do these people sleep at night?
    Oh thats right, Sea Orgers and some staff don't sleep much anyways.
    shakes head
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Zak McKracken Member

    A number of Anons have been arrested on bullshit complaints, but generally they were based on erroneous or deceitful third-party reports. Not many based on alleged misbehavior that a cop witnessed directly. I don't know too many anons (>0 though) who were arrested with an outstanding warrant of questionable validity. If we ignore AO/AGP, it might be < 2.

    Yeah, the precedent that was set could be abused pretty horribly, but it really sounds as if the victim/perp in this case (whose only crime was speeding) was hurt mostly by incompetent record-keeping and bureaucrats who couldn't be bothered to verify the facts in question.

    The officers who strip-searched him were doing the standard procedure that's done for people accused of a felony, who already have a judicially issued warrant. I understand why he would have sued the officers in question.... it was his only reasonable avenue for relief.

    But the danger (and it's a threat to Anons, as well as speeders and everyone else in the US) is that there's no accountability for mistakes like the ones that caused him to be arrested twice. The database programmers aren't responsible. The officers who entered (or forgot to enter) updated info, aren't responsible. The officers of the court who should have entered updated info, aren't either. There's no working mechanism to clean up old, bogus warrants. Whose fault is that?

    Punishing correctional officers for heavy-handed tactics on felony suspects who are innocent, is not going to do a damn thing to fix the problem of poor officer intel.

    Got any ideas for that? :(
    • Like Like x 3
  18. adhocrat Member

    Sure do. Hold the police absolutely accountable for their actions. Which is to say, they have no more right to initiate the use of force than any other citizen.

    Having a subset of the population that is allowed to do things everyone else gets arrested for is sheer utter insanity. If we are equal, then they are bound by the same laws as the rest of us. If we are not equal, then we are pretending to be a democratic society.
    Are some pigs more equal than others?
    • Like Like x 3
  19. Herro Member

    Your argument would make sense if police officers had the same responsibilities as the rest of us. They don't. They're asked to deal with people and situations the rest of us would rather not. Carrying out these responsibilities sometimes requires the use of force. Furthermore, their use of force is codified within the law which creates a level of standardization of the use of force throughout society. Does it always work perfectly? Of course not. Abuse happens. Police are human after all.

    However delegating the use of force to specially trained agents of the State circumscribes the application of such force to a degree more limited and more predictable then were we to leave it to individuals' prerogative. Furthermore, the delegation of the legitimate use of force in this way provides protections to the weak against the strong compared to a situation in which access to violent solutions is available and legitimate for all. Again, is it perfect? No, but it's certainly a vast improve,eat over what you suggest.

    If you are saying that the use of force should not be granted to police officers I would remind you once again that they are tasked with responsibilities that may require the use of force- responsibilities not required of other citizens.
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Zak McKracken Member

    You're saying, hold the people who were following the rules-of-engagement ordered by their superiors, and using information they acquired from others farther up the chain, responsible for every time their management and desk jockeys screw the pooch?

    All that will do is make the cops on the street more paranoid, and more nervous.
    If you think this will somehow encourage beat officers to demand and actually get better quality data from internal sources, you're loopy. The internal guys will continue to not give two shits.

    Or maybe you're just saying "they're all police, hold them all responsible" which would be nice, but that's not the way it works.
  21. adhocrat Member

    That is what the government tells you is necessary, Ever care to think about things without that propaganda filter distorting all you see?

    I am saying that the basis of society is that all people are equal before the law. That means police as currently constituted violate the basic premise of society, ie, that we are all equal before the law.
    If I lie to a cop, it's a felony. If a cop lies to me, it's business as usual.
    Now who exactly should be paranoid under such distorted and bizarre incentives?

    I'm saying the way it works now is fucked up. We cannot hold the people who have the duty to violate our rights to account for their actions. That is the essence of moral hazard, and yet that is the norm in all societies. How has that worked out?

    The incentives to government is to take over more and more of everyday decision making. So tell me, exactly how much power should one person have over another? An ultimately, who decides? The current systems selects for the worst traits in people and encourages them to be aggressive. Why shouldn't they? We can't hold them accountable for their actions so they have no incentive to behave in a proper manner. A cop has to far exceed norms to get in trouble.

    So the people understand this incredibly evil system is indeed incredibly evil. It shows up most obviously in poor places, where the people have a harder time fighting back, but its insidious nature is all to apparent in society.
    • Like Like x 4
  22. Herro Member

    So you're saying that the only reason that force is sometimes required is because government propaganda has brainwashed us into believing so? That's a pretty weak assertion. If a police officer gives someone a lawful order and that person does not comply, what is the officer supposed to do, ask nicely and hope for the best?

    Perhaps you mean to argue that it is the existence of government itself that has created individuals that turn to force to resolve disputes? Aside from not providing a logical reason to believe that this is the case, I do not think it is hard for us to imagine that violence between humans is inevitable, regardless of the presence of a government with coercive authority. Humans come into conflict with one another all the time. Often times we can resolve our differences through cooperation and compromise. Sometimes though we aren't able to settle our differences other than through the use of force. I would also note that we're hardly the only species on this planet to use violence to settle conflicts.

    One of the things you have to remember is that police officers themselves are not granted the right to use violence. The State deligates the authority to use violence to police officers who may do so, within legally defined limits, when acting on behalf of the State. Now I know you don't like that the State has a monopoly on violence, but one of the great things about this is that police officers are required to uphold the law, not arbitrarily use violence. This means that all citizens are subject to the same rules and that the weak are not at the mercy of the strong. Granting the use of force to all means that individuals with a greater capacity for violence and force can dominate those with lesser capacity. Such a situation is hardly desirable if we believe that all individuals share the same rights by virtue of being human beings.

    In practice things aren't so neat and abuse still happens, but if you are asking me to compare our current system to some idealized society free of any kind of coercive government, then I think I should be granted the same license when describing how things should work in theory or principle.

    Again, you're missing the important point that police are given responsibilities not demanded of other citizens. Ask any officer, much of their day to day time on the job is uneventful and does not involve the coercive use of force, but they all have been in situations in which they have had to restore order or stop someone in the commision of a crime. Many times they will have to use force in order to maintain their own physical safety and / or because issuing verbal commands is not sufficient to carry out their assigned duties.

    Furthermore they are designated as agents of the State, but they themselves are not above the law. You can lie to a cop all you want so long as your lying does not interfere with that officer's ability to perform his or her job. You can tell a cop that no, he doesn't look silly trying to project authority while wearing a bike helmet and bike shorts. Not a crime. What you cannot do is lie to a cop regarding information he or she needs to conduct his or her duties. And the underlying logic of the law isn't that it is wrong to lie to the officer as an individual. It is that it is wrong to interfere in an officer trying maintain lawful order or trying to further the interests of justice through investigation of a crime.

    As for officers, yes there are situations in which they are allowed to lie to you. Again, these are situations in which it has been deemed that the ability to mislead others is an important and useful tool for carrying out their assigned duties. However an officer can't just lie to you in a way that misrepresents your rights or his duties. For instance if officers threatened to arrest you for violation of a non existent law in order to, say, discourage you from protesting, that is not protected by the law.

    Again, you may argue that officers in reality violate these prohibitions. And I would agree. Like I said, officers make mistakes and officers willfully violate the law. Police are human and so there's no reason for us to expect that as a whole policing can match up to the idealized intent. However, like I said, you are asking me to compare this reality to an idealized hypothetical society, so it really isn't very reasonable to ignore the idealized intent behind the imperfect reality.

    How fucked up is it though? Here you essentially argue that because of instances of abuse and improper conduct by some police officers, we have an "incredibly evil system" and that it's insidious nature is apparent in society. But you completley ignore the much larger number of neutral or positive interactions that take place between police and citizens on a daily basis. There is abuse and corruption and there are very real problems with relations between policing and race and poverty. And we need to address those problems. But do we do so by just getting rid of this system all together and move to some sort of stateless society where everyone has legitimate access to the use of force? At least the current system provides methods of recourse for those whose rights are violated by police. These methods are certainly imperfect but I would argue that they are better than a system in which my only recourse against abuse is to try and fight back or hope that I am part of a group that can fight back.

    You would essentially have us reject the entire system out of hand because it isn't perfect and because it has produced some negative outcomes. So you would have us believe that our only options are to live with an "incredibly evil" system or reject it out of hand. To me that seems to be an absurd choice that has no basis in reality.
    • Like Like x 4
  23. Ever care to think about things without paranoia distorting all you see?

    Incredibly evil system? ORLY? Try taking your head outa your ass and stop reading sensationalist headlines and try walking a mile in their shoes.[/quote]
  24. failboat Member

    • Like Like x 2
  25. Herro Member

    ^Best post in the thread, imo.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Cops have a vested interest in generating arrest numbers. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
  27. Cops have interests in vests while arresting generations, I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
  28. Herro Member

    You're the one making the claim, you're the one that needs to back it up. Besides, arrests=paperwork. What do cops hate more than anything else in the world? Paperwork.

    (PS I wouldn't be surprised to find that cops occasionally are pressured to be more zealous in arrests by departments looking to justify their budgets)
    • Like Like x 1
  29. PresidentShaw Member

    Are we making overblown statements without looking further into things again?

    Yes other Shaw, I believe we are.
  30. adhocrat Member

    I noticed that you didn't address any of my concerns about moral hazards and distorted incentives. Address those issues before wandering off into other territory.

    Having a group with too much power and not enough checks and restraints is a recipe for disaster.
  31. Herro Member

    You need to read my post again, I provided you with a through response that demonstrated that your entire argument about "moral hazards" was based upon faulty assumptions. I'll give you the tl;dr if you'd like. Your assertion that we can't hold cops accountable is just flat out wrong. Police officers are subject to the law just like anyone else. But I really would encourage you to read my post again, you obviously missed a great deal.

    (And if you want me to address your concerns (which I did, at length) perhaps you could show me the same courtesy and address what I had to say?)
  32. adhocrat Member

    To say that we can hold the police accountable is utterly laughable. If you have enough jokes, let me know, we can do stand up.

    A cop can arrest me, then be told he had no basis for the arrest. He can then bang my head against the wall on the way to the station and my remedy is...none. He can assault me with impunity.
    Yep, great system, no problems with that at all.

    Then I am told I cannot sue the government without their permission. Yep, makes total sense to me.

    I am not saying we can NEVER hold them accountable. I am saying the rules are stacked against the citizen and that we are no longer the boss. The police are supposed to be our agents, not our masters. You seem to want masters, not agents.

    As it is, it is too expensive to assert our rights. If we are right, we've spent time and money claiming what should have been ours anyway; if the courts decide we are wrong, we go to jail for 20 years. There is something truly despicable about that disparity of risks and rewards.

    And this doesn't even talk about the war on drugs (people) that started in the 60s. That has given police powers they never would have dreamed of in the 50s.

    I keep asking "What are the limits of government?" and keep getting a portentous silence.

    Oh, and I didn't respond directly to your previous opinions because that's all they were, your opinions and unexpressed assumptions about human nature, the politics of power and many other areas too numerous to cover. You didn't assuage my concerns about moral hazards, you merely dismissed them without reason other than your opinion.

    The discussion is about those distorted incentives and moral hazards. To dismiss them is to dismiss the contradictions that are destroying our country.
    • Like Like x 3
  33. Herro Member

    Read what I wrote and try again. I've already addressed all of that. In conclusion:

    Can citizens be at a disadvantage? Sure. So why not work on that. Overall the system we have works far more often than not. Why just reject something that works so well? You say that it's evil and cops are our masters and blah blah blah but you never offer anything to support those assertions. But seriously, read my response again. You're just not getting it.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. ITT Herro argues with a brick wall.

    Edit: A deaf autistic brick wall facing the other direction with fingers in his ears yelling "NA NA NA NA NA NA CAN'T HEAR YOU."
    • Like Like x 1
  35. adhocrat Member

    This is why I don't bother too much with you Herro. You make these blanket statements that you pull out of your ass, then expect me to address your misunderstanding of what I am saying.

    SO, first, I did not say that the only reason force is used is because government propaganda has brainwashed us into believing.

    Since your very first assertion was so horribly off path I don't want to follow you down that dead end.
    SO, rethink what you said in light of this new evidence/

    Also, hey Rufus, haven't seen you for a while
    the brick wall
  36. Anonymous Member

    Welcome back :)
  37. Herro Member

    So you have no response then? That's what I thought. It's cool bro. I didn't expect you to be able to run with the proverbial big dogs.
  38. adhocrat Member

    learn to read English, then we'll talk
  39. Herro Member

    Don't make fun of my illiteracy :(
    • Like Like x 3
  40. anonymous612 Member

    Not true. Intentionally giving information you know to be false that directly pertains to an ongoing investigation, with the intent to, if I may use the informal term, fuck with that investigation is a felony. But simply lying to a police officer is no more illegal than lying to anyone else.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins