Yoohoo, Off-Leash Dog Walkers: See That You Don't Have Any Baggies Of Pot Up Your Poop Shoot
In yet another erosion of our civil liberties, the Supreme Court has approved strip searches for any offense, even the most minor ones, before admitting them to jails -- even if there's no reason to suspect they possess any contraband.
Adam Liptak writes in The New York Times:
Monday's decision endorsed a recent trend, from appeals courts in Atlanta, San Francisco and Philadelphia, allowing strip-searches of everyone admitted to a jail's general population. At least seven other appeals courts, on the other hand, had ruled that such searches were proper only if there was a reasonable suspicion that the arrested person had contraband.According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to "the humiliation of a visual strip-search" after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.
A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration. So were victims of sexual assaults and women who were menstruating.
Justice Kennedy responded that "people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. "One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93," Justice Kennedy added.
The case decided Monday, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945, arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence's arrest based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)
Mr. Florence was held for a week in jails in Burlington and Essex Counties, and he was strip-searched in each.
From a commenter at the NYT:
Peter L Ruden, Savannah, GAThe citizens of the United States should realize what this means: If you, your son, your wife, your daughter, or your mother, fail to pay a parking ticket, or if a bureaucrat makes a mistake and your payment of a parking fine is not recorded properly, or if you are arrested because your dog got free of your backyard, police officers can strip search them, make them bend, squat, and spread their most intimate places, even if they are going to be put in a cell in the local county jail. This is how the supposed defenders of liberty, who might be inclined to strike down the supposedly horrific idea of paying for health insurance, have ruled regarding your personal privacy and the sanctity of one's own body.
The willingness of the Court's conservatives to heap humiliation upon the masses for the sake of supposed security and the maintenance of order by the state is disturbing. It is not a matter of happenstance that the three women on the Court all disagreed with the majority. What a horrible decision.
Another commenter at the NYT writes:
Paul, Birmingham, MISupreme Court within last 10 years ruled that citizens can be arrested, booked and placed in the general population of a jail for any and all violations, misdemeanor or felony, and bail can be set for substantially more than the maximum fine of the alleged violation. Police have always said that they can find a traffic violation within 5 minutes of following any car/truck on the road. E.g., changing lanes without signaling. This ruling, along with the prior rulings means that there is no limitation imposed by the 4th amendment regarding what the police want to do to citizens.
This has potentially far-reaching effects on civil liberties -- including freedom of speech. From another commenter at the NYT:
juliegoldberg, Rockland County, NYThis is horrifying. People will think twice about participating in lawful protests where there is some possibility of getting arrested, for fear of what to me looks more like sexual assault than law enforcement.
Now the next suit needs to be "I was put in with the general population regardless of my level of offense" or something similar.
Actually, what needs to be done is take 90% of the federal laws and 60% of the state laws off the books.
Jim P. at April 2, 2012 8:11 PM
Peter L Ruden has a point.
I will donate my $25 to an anonymous internet fund to get some ninjas to kidnap the justices that voted for this, along with the heads of TSA and DHS, and subject them to repeated strip searches to be taped and broadcast over YouTube.
jerry at April 2, 2012 9:00 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/02/yoohoo_off-leas.html#comment-3117704">comment from Jim P.Actually, what needs to be done is take 90% of the federal laws and 60% of the state laws off the books.
Correct.
Amy Alkon
at April 2, 2012 11:22 PM
What percentage of legislators have a law degree? I'm curious, because they never seem to meet a situation they can't bury under an avalanche of lagalese garanteed to keep their more shark-like friends and relatives very lucratively employed, while maintaining the maximum power levels for themselves without having said laws actually apply to *them*. It's amazing, and frustrating.
Kat at April 2, 2012 11:27 PM
It wasn't 'legislators' that made this decision, it was the Supreme Court, and they all have law degrees.
They cited security over privacy. How nice to have this to hide shitty decisions behind.
Continue to take your freedoms for granted, because they're almost all gone now.
DrCos at April 3, 2012 3:52 AM
So we're all upset because criminals in jail are being denied their civil liberties? Should I point out that they're IN JAIL? I'll keep my boo-hooing about civil liberties for all the law-abiding citizens.
Renee at April 3, 2012 4:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/02/yoohoo_off-leas.html#comment-3118082">comment from ReneeFrom the article:
Amy Alkon
at April 3, 2012 5:05 AM
Our legislators could fix this. They could fix Kelo, too. Until enough of them are threatened or removed, you can look for more of the same.
Ron Paul has his issues, and to me they are disqualifying, but his views on civil liberties are not one of them.
MarkD at April 3, 2012 5:25 AM
So we're all upset because criminals in jail are being denied their civil liberties? Should I point out that they're IN JAIL? I'll keep my boo-hooing about civil liberties for all the law-abiding citizens.
Renee, do a little more reading before you spout off. The guy who triggered this case was arrested for an unpaid fine despite the fact that he had the receipt in hand showing that he had paid it. They then held him for a week and strip-searched him. Do you understand that you can be innocent of any crime and this may still happen to you???
Astra at April 3, 2012 8:06 AM
They then held him for a week and strip-searched him.
Twice. They strip-searched him twice. You good with that, Renee? Really?
I said it before and I'll say it again. If ignorance is bliss, people like you must be orgasmic.
Flynne at April 3, 2012 8:19 AM
I am alright with people getting strip-searched in jail (actually IN jail, not a holding cell). They do have a responsibility to keep weapons and rugs out of jail. What is not okay is the uncountable number of things you can go to jail FOR. That's the direction to attack this from.
momof4 at April 3, 2012 9:05 AM
=== ===
Justice Kennedy responded that 'people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals'.
=== ===
This is a version of "we can do anything if it saves one child".
If we searched the person and property of the entire population, we would find many criminals. So, let's do it every week.
Officer: You are driving with a broken tail light. Please step out of the car for a thorough search.
Our masters have decided that "probable cause" is too restrictive, so they now argue that any offense, however minor, justifies the full weight of "the law". This is a police state by procedure.
This is the same "law" which has so recognized the venality of the police, that it is willing to let criminals go free because searches were done without probable cause. This is the roundabout way of removing that very bad rule, but it replaces it with a complete loss of freedom.
The sheeple look at each other, say "baa-aaa", and blink in confusion.
Andrew_M_Garland at April 3, 2012 10:29 AM
Justice Kennedy responded that "people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. "One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93," Justice Kennedy added.
So... If Timothy McVeigh had been strip searched for driving without a license plate, he would have been compelled to start detailing his plans to blow up a building? Or maybe he was hiding a blueprint of the building marked *place bomb here* up his butt?
How exactly does the line of reasoning follow that people planning devastating acts will be stopped by being strip searched?
Jazzhands at April 3, 2012 11:23 AM
I do not doubt that we are only one more terrorist attack away (successful or not) from all being stopped and searched, anywhere and anytime, with no arrest even needed.
KarenW at April 3, 2012 12:40 PM
No, this will not happen to me. I've not had to pay fines, because I've not broken any laws.
Do I think its excessive to search criminals? No. Do I think that we have too many laws on the books? Absolutely. Don't confuse my statement above. And don't talk to a grown person about "spouting off". I use bigger words when correcting my children. Jesus.
Renee at April 3, 2012 1:43 PM
Chute. It's poop chute, not poop shoot. Poop shoot makes absolutely no damn sense.
deathbysnoosnoo at April 3, 2012 2:56 PM
> No, this will not happen to me. I've not had to
> pay fines, because I've not broken any laws.
Unfortunately, you have broken many laws - you just don't know it, because there is no way you know what all the laws are. See the book "Three Felonies a Day" wherein civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average person unknowingly breaks at least three federal criminal laws every day.
Snoopy at April 3, 2012 5:58 PM
"No, this will not happen to me. I've not had to pay fines, because I've not broken any laws. "
This is class-A denial, nothing more.
Have you not noticed you can be strip-searched for wanting to travel on an airplane?
Radwaste at April 5, 2012 7:41 AM
Leave a comment