Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searching for Any Arrest - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON — The [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]Supreme Court[/URL] on Monday [URL="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf"]ruled by a 5-to-4 vote[/URL] that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband. [B]Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations. [/B] “Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails. The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a [URL="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-945_petitioner_amcu_aba.authcheckdam.pdf"]supporting brief[/URL] filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures. The federal appeals courts had been split on the question, though most of them prohibited strip-searches unless they were based on a reasonable suspicion that contraband was present. The Supreme Court did not say that strip-searches of every new arrestee were required; it ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches did not forbid them. Daron Hall, the president of the American Correctional Association and sheriff of Davidson County, Tenn., said the association welcomed the flexibility offered by the decision. The association’s current standards discourage blanket strip-search policies. Monday’s sharply divided decision came from a court whose ideological differences are under intense scrutiny after last week’s arguments on President Obama’s [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"]health care law[/URL]. The ruling came less than two weeks after a pair of major 5-to-4 decisions on the right to counsel in plea negotiations, though there Justice Kennedy had joined the court’s liberal wing. The majority and dissenting opinions on Monday agreed that the search procedures the decision allowed — close visual inspection by a guard while naked — were more intrusive than being observed while showering, but did not involve bodily contact. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the strip-searches the majority allowed were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when there was good reason to do so. Justice Breyer said that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to bar strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that they were carrying contraband. [B]Monday’s decision endorsed a recent trend, from appeals courts in [URL="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516734ENB.pdf"]Atlanta[/URL], [URL="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/02/08/05-17080.pdf"]San Francisco[/URL] and [URL="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/093603p.pdf"]Philadelphia[/URL], 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. [/B] 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. 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 [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08bar.html"]Albert W. Florence[/URL] 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.) [B]Mr. Florence was held for a week in jails in Burlington and Essex Counties, and he was strip-searched in each. There is some dispute about the details, but general agreement that he was made to stand naked in front of a guard who required him to move intimate parts of his body. The guards did not touch him. [/B] [B] “Turn around,” Mr. Florence, [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08bar.html"]in an interview last year[/URL], recalled being told by jail officials. “Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.” [/B] [B] “I consider myself a man’s man,” said Mr. Florence, a finance executive for a car dealership. “Six-three. Big guy. It was humiliating. It made me feel less than a man.” [/B] [B] Justice Kennedy said the most relevant precedent was [URL="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=441&invol=520"]Bell v. Wolfish[/URL], which was decided by a 5-to-4 vote in 1979. It allowed strip-searches of people held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York after “contact visits” with outsiders. [/B] As in the Bell case, Justice Kennedy wrote, the “undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from the more invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband.” The majority and dissenting opinions drew differing conclusions from the available information about the amount of contraband introduced into jails and how much strip-searches add to pat-downs and metal detectors. Justice Kennedy said one person arrested for disorderly conduct in Washington State “managed to hide a lighter, tobacco, tattoo needles and other prohibited items in his rectal cavity.” Officials in San Francisco, he added, “have discovered contraband hidden in body cavities of people arrested for trespassing, public nuisance and shoplifting.” Justice Breyer wrote that there was very little empirical support for the idea that strip-searches detect contraband that would not have been found had jail officials used less intrusive means, particularly if strip-searches were allowed when officials had a reasonable suspicion that they would find something. For instance, in a study of 23,000 people admitted to a correctional facility in Orange County, N.Y., using that standard, there was at most one instance of contraband detected that would not otherwise have been found, Judge Breyer wrote. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Breyer’s dissent. Justice Kennedy said that strict policies deter people entering jails from even trying to smuggle contraband. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined all of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas joined most of it. [B]In a concurrence, Chief Justice Roberts, quoting from [URL="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/292/case.html"]an earlier decision[/URL], said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.’ ” [/B] Justice Alito wrote that different rules might apply for people arrested but not held with the general population or whose detentions had “not been reviewed by a judicial officer.”[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2[/url] I should note that this decision doesn't mean that jails [I]have to strip-search[/I][I], [/I]but simply that the jails [I]can.[/I] However, this ruling basically says that anyone arrested, even erroneously, is a criminal of some sort.

[QUOTE=Megafan;35422887]However, this ruling basically says that anyone arrested, even erroneously, is a criminal of some sort.[/QUOTE] [I]What.[/I] How? How does it say they're more of a criminal than [I]arresting them in the first place[/I]? On the ruling itself, eh. It's sketchy, simply because "unreasonable search" is a phrase with numerous possible interpretations of what is "unreasonable". Kennedy's statements are kinda stupid though. There's no indication that A. those people would have been strip-searched and B. that anything would have been found on them.

[QUOTE=Spooter;35422952][I]What.[/I] How? How does it say they're more of a criminal than [I]arresting them in the first place[/I]? On the ruling itself, eh. It's sketchy, simply because "unreasonable search" is a phrase with numerous possible interpretations of what is "unreasonable". Kennedy's statements are kinda stupid though. There's no indication that A. those people would have been strip-searched and B. that anything would have been found on them.[/QUOTE] Because if you're arrested wrongly (like with a false warrant or something), you'll be treated as a criminal when you get to jail by being strip-searched. There was a recent example of this when a man was brought up on a warrant that was either expired or wrong in some way, and even though he had a paper to verify that he was not to be arrested for it, they arrested him and he was strip-searched not once, but twice. At two separate facilities.

I can understand the safety concerns they are coming from though.

And these are the judges that say they're for civil liberties.

Because clearly people who are arrested for nonviolent crimes are going to bring contraband into jail. They might as well just make it so you're guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure this will make jails a safer place but I'd rather not give up my liberties for more security in a jail, where there's already armed guards and constant surveillance (even if not on individual inmates).

Also, the end result was 5-4, with the 5 Conservatives (4 Cons plus 1 swing vote) approving of this, and the 4 Liberals against.

[QUOTE=Valdor;35424413]Because clearly people who are arrested for nonviolent crimes are going to bring contraband into jail. They might as well just make it so you're guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure this will make jails a safer place but I'd rather not give up my liberties for more security in a jail, where there's already armed guards and constant surveillance (even if not on individual inmates).[/QUOTE] You're completely missing the point. Most departments/offices do not strip search all book-ins or inmates. Most of the time the policy of that agency does not allow it. When i worked in corrections strip searches in book-in only happened if you got arrested for drug related crimes. But more times then not, a person with a drug charge has more drugs on them and they hide it to prevent getting another charge. If that was to get introduced to the jail it could get a lot of people hurt. Most of the time people are given the option "Hey do you have anymore drugs on you? If you do tell us, if you don't tell us and we find it you're going to get two more charges" (Ie the drug charge and introducing contraband to a correctional facility.) Same goes if the inmates/prisoners keep setting off metal detectors after pat-downs. I'm also going to point out there are no armed guards in jails, weapons are prohibited in any type of correctional facility. Not even the police officer who is bring in a prisoner is allowed to bring weapons, they all must be secured in the lock box outside of booking. (That means, asps, guns, knifes, etc. They can keep tasers and OC.) Once you're an inmate or prisoner you automatically lose a lot of liberties. As an officer I'm allowed to search though any article of property you own (I cannot however just open legal mail or stuff like that. I can search it with you there but i cannot read it), i can read any non-legal mail, property boxes, your person. It does not mean you're going to get treated like shit 24/7 it just means you're going to do what we say in-order to keep the facility safe. Don't like it bail out, don't like it don't go to jail. Most people there got themselves in that situation so they can only blame themselves.

[QUOTE=Killuah;35423455]I can understand the safety concerns they are coming from though.[/QUOTE] I can understand why the government wants to snoop through all of our things and wiretap our phone calls, to catch terrorists. That doesn't make it right. This ruling is bullshit. [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MR-X;35426159]Don't like it bail out, don't like it don't go to jail. Most people there got themselves in that situation so they can only blame themselves.[/QUOTE] That is terrible reasoning. "Don't want your 4th amendment [b]rights[/b] violated? Don't get arrested." When you are arrested, you have not been tried yet. A violation of these rights should not occur. There are cases when a strip search is reasonable. I hate to break it to you though, but every case is not reasonable.

This is just beyond idiotic. I can understand how they may think it's preventing contraband from coming into places, but this is stepping over people's right and is way overboard. Really, no one should be able to search you, your person, or any bit of your property without a court order/warrant. Give too powerful police powers to a group and it'll eventually get abused, easily by some assholes. I realize jails should give a pat-down, if there's reasonable suspicion, but an actual strip-search goes a bit far. At least, when given to anyone admitted and even if there's no reason to. I hate it when laws trickle down, because this is going to get somewhere else too.

You're in custody, your property of the state. You're not being treated according to the charges you've face. You're being treated like a general inmate/prisoner. Convicted or not, everyone goes though it. You're being housed in a state owned/county owned correctional facility. Again this ruling just enforces the jails right to search people/strip search them. It does not happen 24/7 and with every person. Only certain people in certain cases. I worked in a jail for a year or so and only had to strip search one person. It was simply because a tool was missing and this person in question was the only one in that room that day. This has been going on for ages and suddenly because one article comes up people want to trip shit. I'm sorry, I'm not going to risk getting stabbed or slashed because people think pat-downs and strip searches (In certain cases only) are destroying peoples rights. I've seen officers get stabbed, slashed, and nearly killed because they didn't pat one person down that day. I've seen inmates get hurt because of lazy pat-downs. Trust me, strip searches do not get abused and searches as a whole don't get abused. No one enjoys having someone strip down and making them do that shit. No one wants to see another mans junk, no one enjoys doing shake downs. They're time consuming and boring, however they're necessary to control contraband, weapons, clutter (papers and other things that can be piled up to make a fire during a riot.) Anything can be used as a weapon in jails I've seen people "fish" a clipboard off of a desk and within 15 minutes have that thing dismantled with just the metal clip and it was filed down so it could be used as stabbing weapon. I've seen people mix salt and pepper they collected in water to make home made mace/pepper spray. These people are very clever and will use any resource possible. Jails and correctional facilities are all about control, we as officers control all the variables and make things as safe as can be. In my state it is 48 inmates to one officer. I had two housing units I'm in charge of with 24 in each tank. That is 24 inmates to one officer. I'm completely outnumbered. If there is the slight chance that there is a weapon and an inmate has it on their person I'm going to search. I don't have any weapons, OC, or anything. All I had was a radio, two sets of handcuffs and some cut-needle resistant gloves. I'm going home at the end of the day, if you don't like that then that is your problem. I understand why people want to protect the 4th amendment that is fine and dandy, but no one really understand what goes on behind the scenes in jails. There are programs people can take, i suggest people do ride-a-longs, jail tours and citizen academies. They cover topics like this, it would certainly open peoples eyes. Before I went in to law enforcement I didn't have much regard for the police and didn't understand a lot of the shit they did. It is easy to criticize when you don't have to go though the things they do.

I am going to make a general opinion statement here. If your arrested, you have no rights. If they want to drug test you, they will. If they want to get you BAC, they will. Frankly with all shit going on today, I would [B]hope[/B] they would strip search you. Who knows that you could be hiding.

[QUOTE=areolop;35434637]I am going to make a general opinion statement here. If your arrested, you have no rights. If they want to drug test you, they will. If they want to get you BAC, they will. Frankly with all shit going on today, I would [B]hope[/B] they would strip search you. Who knows that you could be hiding.[/QUOTE] Make you squat and grunt, only god knows how many weapons you can cram in your keister.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;35434672]Make you squat and grunt, only god knows how many weapons you can cram in your keister.[/QUOTE] You would be surprised

[QUOTE=MR-X;35432969]You're in custody, your property of the state. You're not being treated according to the charges you've face. You're being treated like a general inmate/prisoner. Convicted or not, everyone goes though it. You're being housed in a state owned/county owned correctional facility. Again this ruling just enforces the jails right to search people/strip search them. It does not happen 24/7 and with every person. Only certain people in certain cases. I worked in a jail for a year or so and only had to strip search one person. It was simply because a tool was missing and this person in question was the only one in that room that day. This has been going on for ages and suddenly because one article comes up people want to trip shit. I'm sorry, I'm not going to risk getting stabbed or slashed because people think pat-downs and strip searches (In certain cases only) are destroying peoples rights. I've seen officers get stabbed, slashed, and nearly killed because they didn't pat one person down that day. I've seen inmates get hurt because of lazy pat-downs. Trust me, strip searches do not get abused and searches as a whole don't get abused. No one enjoys having someone strip down and making them do that shit. No one wants to see another mans junk, no one enjoys doing shake downs. They're time consuming and boring, however they're necessary to control contraband, weapons, clutter (papers and other things that can be piled up to make a fire during a riot.) Anything can be used as a weapon in jails I've seen people "fish" a clipboard off of a desk and within 15 minutes have that thing dismantled with just the metal clip and it was filed down so it could be used as stabbing weapon. I've seen people mix salt and pepper they collected in water to make home made mace/pepper spray. These people are very clever and will use any resource possible. Jails and correctional facilities are all about control, we as officers control all the variables and make things as safe as can be. In my state it is 48 inmates to one officer. I had two housing units I'm in charge of with 24 in each tank. That is 24 inmates to one officer. I'm completely outnumbered. If there is the slight chance that there is a weapon and an inmate has it on their person I'm going to search. I don't have any weapons, OC, or anything. All I had was a radio, two sets of handcuffs and some cut-needle resistant gloves. I'm going home at the end of the day, if you don't like that then that is your problem. I understand why people want to protect the 4th amendment that is fine and dandy, but no one really understand what goes on behind the scenes in jails. There are programs people can take, i suggest people do ride-a-longs, jail tours and citizen academies. They cover topics like this, it would certainly open peoples eyes. Before I went in to law enforcement I didn't have much regard for the police and didn't understand a lot of the shit they did. It is easy to criticize when you don't have to go though the things they do.[/QUOTE] Before this ruling, a custody officer could only strip search someone with [b]reasonable suspicion.[/b] Being arrested, by itself, is not reason enough to warrant strip search. [b]Strip searches should not be conducted for offenses that do not involve weapons, drugs or violence unless police reasonably suspect you are concealing a weapon or illegal goods, and they have authorization from the supervising officer on duty.[/b] Someone who just stabbed someone? Strip search them, that is fine. I understand the safety for officers is paramount, but you don't go violating rights. I sympathize for officers. I love police officers, they keep me safe, but they fully understand the risks of being a police officer. We should not waiver our rights under any circumstances. Even states are ignoring this ruling because they know it is ridiculous. [url]http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/nj_law_differs_from_us_supreme.html[/url] [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8fsuogyRjo&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&feature=plcp[/media] Why this is a terrible thing.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35434832]Before this ruling, a custody officer could only strip search someone with [b]reasonable suspicion.[/b] Being arrested, by itself, is not reason enough to warrant strip search. [b]Strip searches should not be conducted for offenses that do not involve weapons, drugs or violence unless police reasonably suspect you are concealing a weapon or illegal goods, and they have authorization from the supervising officer on duty.[/b] Someone who just stabbed someone? Strip search them, that is fine. I understand the safety for officers is paramount, but you don't go violating rights. I sympathize for officers. I love police officers, they keep me safe, but they fully understand the risks of being a police officer. We should not waiver our rights under any circumstances. Even states are ignoring this ruling because they know it is ridiculous. [url]http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/nj_law_differs_from_us_supreme.html[/url] [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] [/QUOTE] I know that, most places don't. That was the first thing I said. But people pick and choose what they read. [QUOTE=MR-X;35426159]Most departments/offices do not strip search all book-ins or inmates. Most of the time the policy of that agency does not allow it. [/QUOTE] The information about the guy being strip searched several times, when you're transferred from jail to jail they do what they call "Showering out." Each jail you go to you're required to go in to a room and take a shower, they give you shampoo to kill any type of body lice and such. That being said while that is happening a search can be conducted and normally is. Officers miss things and you never assume the other person caught everything because when you do that bad things have happened. His jail process isn't horrifying, it is fine. The issue in the video is the fact he got arrested for something bogus and had to go though that. Some people may be embarrassed by it, or feel bad about it. Whatever, I understand that but it isn't like we line people up in one room where they can all see each other and make them do it. They go in to a private room and do it, the only person that sees it is the guard. Most of us have done it before and don't care. We don't talk about it, we don't talk about the person. We have a job to do and we take it seriously, but we're not evil people that laugh and make fun of peoples bodies. We do have a bit of humanity despite working with monsters (most of the time), we do help people and are a important part of the legal process. We're they're only connection to the outside world and we do our best to help people who truly want it.

[QUOTE=MR-X;35435934]I know that, most places don't. That was the first thing I said. But people pick and choose what they read. The information about the guy being strip searched several times, when you're transferred from jail to jail they do what they call "Showering out." Each jail you go to you're required to go in to a room and take a shower, they give you shampoo to kill any type of body lice and such. That being said while that is happening a search [b][highlight]can be[/highlight][/b] conducted and normally is. Officers miss things and you never assume the other person caught everything because when you do that bad things have happened. His jail process isn't horrifying, it is fine. The issue in the video is the fact he got arrested for something bogus and had to go though that.[/QUOTE] I actually did read your entire post, thank you. The fact that this is allowed to happen period without reasonable suspicion is wrong. "We don't violate you most of the time." Does not matter, it should not happen period. The fact that this is for officer safety, does not make it any less wrong. "He was just being showered out, a normal process. Oh by the way, [b]they searched him too, they don't have to, [u]but they did anyways.[/u][/b]" The additional search should have never been conducted. They should have never strip searched a man with documented proof that he was innocent, there was no reason he had to be subjected to what he was subjected to, [b]even if he wasn't innocent.[/b] The issue in the video is both the false arrest and the strip searches that were conducted on a man who they had no reason to believe he was carrying contraband. "Oh, but some prisoners do." No excuse. [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] I understand you want to make sure you and the people you work with every day are safe. I appreciate the service you do for society, but this ruling is wrong.

[QUOTE=areolop;35434637] If your arrested, you have no rights.[/QUOTE] That's a dangerous and bad opinion to have. It might not seem like it can apply to you now, but the future is uncertain and you or someone you know might end up in a position where these things can effect them.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] I think Jon Stewart put it best: [img]http://i.imgur.com/OQ7s4.jpg[/img]

Does this apply to cardiac arrest too?

[QUOTE=Nikota;35424321]And these are the judges that say they're for civil liberties.[/QUOTE] I'll fix that for you. [quote]the judges that say they're for [b]their own[/b] civil liberties.[/quote]

you stole a packet of skittles let me strip you down for bombs