• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS upholds strip-search on arrest.

  • Thread starter Herr Heckler Koch
  • Start date

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
I'm not saying I agree, and I didn't read all of the info but wasn't there some clown who managed to get some publicity after having been found with a .38 up his a$$?

In any case if the cops suspect you packed stuff in there, they can get a warrant.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho

In any case if the cops suspect you packed stuff in there, they can get a warrant.

Exactly.

Those who have been convicted of no crime are citizens with rights to be protected. Through personal experience, I have seen police arrest citizens simply for contempt-of-cop, knowing full well that whatever B.S. charges they lay won't stick. The thought of the thousands of citizens arrested every year by rogue cops for exercising constitutional freedoms being subjected to degrading strip-searches literally sickens me. Can you imagine being arrested on a bogus disorderly conduct, unlawful concealment, or unsafe handling charge and being forced to undress and allow thugs in government-issued costumes to inspect your body? I certainly hope I am never placed in that situation, because I can foresee no other path than total resistance.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Exactly.

Those who have been convicted of no crime are citizens with rights to be protected. Through personal experience, I have seen police arrest citizens simply for contempt-of-cop, knowing full well that whatever B.S. charges they lay won't stick. The thought of the thousands of citizens arrested every year by rogue cops for exercising constitutional freedoms being subjected to degrading strip-searches literally sickens me. Can you imagine being arrested on a bogus disorderly conduct, unlawful concealment, or unsafe handling charge and being forced to undress and allow thugs in government-issued costumes to inspect your body? I certainly hope I am never placed in that situation, because I can foresee no other path than total resistance.

I have seen people arrested for nothing more than being an idiot. Doing so in the face of an idiot cop is a sure way to go to jail. They will trump up a charge just because you pissed them off, knowing somewhere along the way it cost you money.

That's why I don't piss them off. I stay away from situations I can get thrown in jail for. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who dig their own graves.

That said, they should have to get a warrant if they suspect you're holding something, and at the point of getting you to jail they should be able to get one easily.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I have seen people arrested for nothing more than being an idiot. Doing so in the face of an idiot cop is a sure way to go to jail. They will trump up a charge just because you pissed them off, knowing somewhere along the way it cost you money.

That's why I don't piss them off. I stay away from situations I can get thrown in jail for. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who dig their own graves.

That said, they should have to get a warrant if they suspect you're holding something, and at the point of getting you to jail they should be able to get one easily.

Unfortunately, people have been arrested for mere legal open-carrying while conducting official business (sudden valley gunner comes to mind immediately). It's always easy to point at some idiot Occupier and laugh when he gets hauled off for being a jackass, but when the police are allowed to ignore the law in dealing with some citizens, no one's rights are safe.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I'm not saying I agree, and I didn't read all of the info but wasn't there some clown who managed to get some publicity after having been found with a .38 up his a$$?

In any case if the cops suspect you packed stuff in there, they can get a warrant.

Nice pansy-footing around the 5-4 (Conservative) decision.

I figured strip-searching was typical when you are booked into jail; at least it seems to be the case in Seattle (I was strip searched).

As for the guy who managed to get a .38 (snubby?..I sure hope!..but even then!) up his keester...well, he must really be a big supporter of the Second Amendment; or is he pushing a new line of holsters?
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I have seen people arrested for nothing more than being an idiot. Doing so in the face of an idiot cop is a sure way to go to jail. They will trump up a charge just because you pissed them off, knowing somewhere along the way it cost you money.

That's why I don't piss them off. I stay away from situations I can get thrown in jail for. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who dig their own graves.

That said, they should have to get a warrant if they suspect you're holding something, and at the point of getting you to jail they should be able to get one easily.

Personally, I always thank the officer for the ticket, and tell him/her to have a Nice Day.

You know, I expected to jump into this thread reading you going-off on Conservative Justices being part of the anti-American, anti-Liberty Machine.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
You know, I expected to jump into this thread reading you going-off on Conservative Justices being part of the anti-American, anti-Liberty Machine.

No, conservatives have no interest in defendant rights, because they're convinced it's impossible for them ever to be defendants. In the conservative mind, if a cop takes notice of you, you had it coming, you're already guilty, and you've sacrificed all your rights, no matter what you did or didn't do.

(In the liberal mind, of course, if you have more money than someone else, you've sacrificed all your rights, no matter how you got the money.)
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
No, conservatives have no interest in defendant rights, because they're convinced it's impossible for them ever to be defendants. In the conservative mind, if a cop takes notice of you, you had it coming, you're already guilty, and you've sacrificed all your rights, no matter what you did or didn't do.

(In the liberal mind, of course, if you have more money than someone else, you've sacrificed all your rights, no matter how you got the money.)

I agree, particularly with the latter. The wealthy ought to have the piss taxed out of them--I should have that as my signature.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
So sorry that you folks are all hurt over this decision, but it merely follows a long chain of decisions revolving around the concept of "legitimate penological interest" in operating the corrections system. Just as the SC is loathe to second-guess the cop on the street, they feel the same about those who run the jails/prisons.

Not very long ago strip searches were not generally performed on those arrested for misdemeanant arrestees. Circumstances and events changed that policy/procedure, and the jail/prison administrators here presented a good case of explaining why. Having been able to articulate their reasons and convince the SC that it was being applied equitably (here meaning to everybod as opposed to selectively) the SC pretty much followed sare decisis in reaching this ruling.

It ought to be noted that the appellant pretty much sunk his own case by virtue of the remedy he sought. Asking the court to impose a set of rules/regulations/guidelines/write policy & procedure is asking them to do something they have repeatedly said was both beyond their reach and what they dearly wished to avoid. The SC interprets the law and sets boundaries where none were previously established, but despises with a passion the notion of telling folks how to actually perform their job at the nitty-gritty level.

stay safe.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Noah Feldman, professor of law at Harvard, analysis

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-08/strip-search-case-reflects-death-of-american-privacy.html
Excerpt said:
The short answer is that Kennedy couldn’t find a violation of dignity for the petitioner because almost everyone committed to a jail or prison gets similar treatment. (Some states have banned the practice after minor arrests.) Every arrest, even for major offenses, is supposed to take place on the basis of suspicion, not proven guilt. Everyone in jail is equally presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial -- or until he or she admits guilt in a plea bargain. To find that all of these people are having their most basic rights violated every day would have been too disruptive to the basic practices of American criminal justice.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho

The thinking he outlines is exactly the problem with this country. In any contest between the rights of the individual and the so-called needs of the State, the State is the one who should lose out. I would much rather accept the risk of the occasional weapon being smuggled in a miscreant's rear end than the possibility that an upright citizen be subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment because the State's hired monkeys didn't know the law and decided to make a false arrest.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
The thinking he outlines is exactly the problem with this country. In any contest between the rights of the individual and the so-called needs of the State, the State is the one who should lose out. I would much rather accept the risk of the occasional weapon being smuggled in a miscreant's rear end than the possibility that an upright citizen be subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment because the State's hired monkeys didn't know the law and decided to make a false arrest.

Now you just being dramatic. Strip-searches are not humiliating, nor degrading. I have been strip-searched after being booked into jail, and didn't at all feel humiliated or degraded. The experience was professional--I stripped my clothes off in an enclosed room, and one female officer came into the room, and 'examined' me for contraband (no touching, just observing). From what I understand there are even less invasive methods (if one considers a strip-search invasive), such as (if necessary): X-ray.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Now you just being dramatic. Strip-searches are not humiliating, nor degrading. I have been strip-searched after being booked into jail, and didn't at all feel humiliated or degraded. The experience was professional--I stripped my clothes off in an enclosed room, and one female officer came into the room, and 'examined' me for contraband (no touching, just observing). From what I understand there are even less invasive methods (if one considers a strip-search invasive), such as (if necessary): X-ray.

Not surprising at all. You are a willing sheep who believes the concept of individual rights to be a fiction. You believe that all individuals are simply livestock to be utilized by the State as it sees fit. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being, but I take great joy in knowing how much the sentiments of liberty expressed on this forum must pain you. Statements like the one above, plus the fact that you keep coming back for more, lend evidence to you being a masochistic brand of authoritarian statist. However, there are several other flavors that fit you, as well.

419403_216472665114117_204445079650209_440502_61525349_n.jpg

Anyone who thinks having her body forcibly examined by an armed employee of the State is not a humiliating or degrading experience has a mental problem and should be permanently institutionalized where her needs for total control can be best met.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Haha love that cartoon Im just going to post it and circle the ones I think someone is being.

States interest was just a statist invention of the courts to rule in favor of more government intrusion. It is unconstitutional in my opinion.

It's used in our state even though our state constitutions explicitly says that the jobs of those in authority are to protect individual rights.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Not surprising at all. You are a willing sheep who believes the concept of individual rights to be a fiction. You believe that all individuals are simply livestock to be utilized by the State as it sees fit. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being, but I take great joy in knowing how much the sentiments of liberty expressed on this forum must pain you. Statements like the one above, plus the fact that you keep coming back for more, lend evidence to you being a masochistic brand of authoritarian statist. However, there are several other flavors that fit you, as well. [snip] Anyone who thinks having her body forcibly examined by an armed employee of the State is not a humiliating or degrading experience has a mental problem and should be permanently institutionalized where her needs for total control can be best met.
First, there are no fundamental rights, there are only premises, and it seems most of the time those premises are purported to be derived from some sort of principles. I have stated that the State can do what it wants to an individual, with impunity; I did not state that I agree with what the State does. Liberty is nothing more than a notion. Apparently you have not been booked into Seattle jail. Here in Seattle at least--I suspect it may be the case in most cities, and States--jail staff are not armed with firearms; at least, the jail staff that I had seen during my three days in jail were not armed. I have never stated that I support the State, nor any Institution exerting control over individuals but they do. And in some instances the State, and Institutions ought to exert control over certain individuals, IMO--Gary Ridgway comes to mind.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
First, there are no fundamental rights, there are only premises, and it seems most of the time those premises are purported to be derived from some sort of principles. I have stated that the State can do what it wants to an individual, with impunity; I did not state that I agree with what the State does. Liberty is nothing more than a notion. Apparently you have not been booked into Seattle jail. Here in Seattle at least--I suspect it may be the case in most cities, and States--jail staff are not armed with firearms; at least, the jail staff that I had seen during my three days in jail were not armed. I have never stated that I support the State, nor any Institution exerting control over individuals but they do. And in some instances the State, and Institutions ought to exert control over certain individuals, IMO--Gary Ridgway comes to mind.

Well then proposition 8 shouldn't have been overturned right?

It should be ok if some states want to outlaw homosexuality? Right?
 
Top