Supreme Court Upholds Jailhouse Stripsearch for Minor Offenses

[easysurfer]

This is pretty scary to me. From the article...

"In this case, Albert Florence's nightmare began when the sport utility vehicle driven by his pregnant wife was pulled over for speeding. He was a passenger; his 4-year-old son was in the backseat.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the circumstances of the arrest were of little importance. Instead, Kennedy said, Florence's entry into the general jail population gave guards the authorization to force him to strip naked and expose his mouth, nose, ears and genitals to a visual search in case he was hiding anything."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2012-04-02/supreme-court-strip-search/53945028/1

 

[haha]

This is pretty scary to me. From the article...

"In this case, Albert Florence's nightmare began when the sport utility vehicle driven by his pregnant wife was pulled over for speeding. He was a passenger; his 4-year-old son was in the backseat.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the circumstances of the arrest were of little importance. Instead, Kennedy said, Florence's entry into the general jail population gave guards the authorization to force him to strip naked and expose his mouth, nose, ears and genitals to a visual search in case he was hiding anything."

[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2012-04-02/supreme-court-strip-search/53945028/1[/URL]

Beloved camrades, welcome to the gulag!

 

[REWahoo]

You guys sound nervous - got something to hide?

 

[M Paquette]

Another 5-4 Supreme Court vote along the usual lines.

Oh, and a second decision today...

The court ruled unanimously that police investigators are immune from civil damage suits for giving false testimony to a grand jury. The justices said that witnesses who testify falsely can be prosecuted for perjury, and that the threat of such a criminal prosecution is an adequate safeguard. But critics pointed out that prosecutors rarely are willing to bring perjury charges against their own police investigators.

The authoritarian consolidation continues...

 

[easysurfer]

You guys sound nervous - got something to hide?

Not really. Just don't want to be one moment forgetting to buckle up, the next moment asked to cough in public.

 

[harley]

Blood. Pressure. Going. Through. The. Roof. Where's. my. whiskey. bottle?

 

[glippy]

It sounds right to me. The constitution doesn't govern state jail house policies. States have the right to manage their jails how they see fit. If you have a problem with it, your issue ought to be with your state/county jail system to alter their search policies, not with the Supreme Court.

 

[REWahoo]

Where's. my. whiskey. bottle?

If you get arrested the guys at the jail will help you find it...

 

[bld999]

"Blood. Pressure. Going. Through. The. Roof. Where's. my. whiskey. bottle?"

Why get stalled with the question? I'm considering a camelback for just that purpose <G>

 

[ERD50]

It sounds right to me. The constitution doesn't govern state jail house policies. States have the right to manage their jails how they see fit. If you have a problem with it, your issue ought to be with your state/county jail system to alter their search policies, not with the Supreme Court.

Agreed. Plus, the system might be in place to protect people like this. Imagine the next guy they bring in sneaks in a weapon, and uses it against the guy caught for speeding (and held because they thought he had other open violations). Then the news would be "innocent man killed by fellow prisoner while held in County jail, charges were false, leaves widow and child behind".

Lose-lose situation.

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

Agreed. Plus, the system might be in place to protect people like this. Imagine the next guy they bring in sneaks in a weapon, and uses it against the guy caught for speeding (and held because they thought he had other open violations). Then the news would be "innocent man killed by fellow prisoner while held in County jail, charges were false, leaves widow and child behind".

Lose-lose situation.

-ERD50

Agreed that is one possible outcome. But to be devil's advocate imagine someone's son or daughter coming back home from college. In college, many kids do minor offenses (too much drinking here, not wearing seatbelts). On the way home, they get stopped, and arrested. The call to parents, goes like "For not wearing seat belts, I got strip searched."

I dunno, in some ways the ruling can seem like airline TSA procedures on steriods.

 

[ERD50]

Agreed that is one possible outcome. But to be devil's advocate imagine someone's son or daughter coming back home from college. In college, many kids do minor offenses (too much drinking here, not wearing seatbelts). On the way home, they get stopped, and arrested. The call to parents, goes like "For not wearing seat belts, I got strip searched."

I dunno, in some ways the ruling can seem like airline TSA procedures on steriods.

Yes, I'm just throwing out a possible scenario. I've never worked LE, and I've never been in jail, so I don't know how these things are handled (I guess I left myself open with that line?).

I would hope that some discretion could be used, and people like this put into 'minimal risk' areas, but maybe that isn't always possible. It does seem extreme for these cases, but I guess the SC ruled on the point that this is a state/local issue and that since it takes place as part of incarceration, it doesn't violate Fed statutes.

-ERD50

 

[glippy]

Perhaps the jails/states ought to implement their own policies that strip searches are only to be permitted where there is a reasonable belief that it is necessary.

 

[easysurfer]

Yes, I'm just throwing out a possible scenario. I've never worked LE, and I've never been in jail, so I don't know how these things are handled (I guess I left myself open with that line?).

I would hope that some discretion could be used, and people like this put into 'minimal risk' areas, but maybe that isn't always possible. It does seem extreme for these cases, but I guess the SC ruled on the point that this is a state/local issue and that since it takes place as part of incarceration, it doesn't violate Fed statutes.

-ERD50

From the news coverage I was watching today, some have separate areas and some do not. So I guess it's just a luck (or unluck) of the draw.

 

[easysurfer]

Perhaps the jails/states ought to implement their own policies that strip searches are only to be permitted where there is a reasonable belief that it is necessary.

+1. At least that way, the term "reasonable belief" offers some check and balance so the situation isn't all or none.

 

[harley]

Agreed. Plus, the system might be in place to protect people like this. Imagine the next guy they bring in sneaks in a weapon, and uses it against the guy caught for speeding (and held because they thought he had other open violations). Then the news would be "innocent man killed by fellow prisoner while held in County jail, charges were false, leaves widow and child behind".

Lose-lose situation.

-ERD50

Good point. Actually, in order to make sure nothing like this happens we should put everyone in diapers (transparent so nobody can sneak in a shiv), implant GPS trackers and microphones, and require loyalty oaths before receiving the daily dose of pink slime.

It's not about safety, it's about freedom. Who cares what the media says about anything? The guy wasn't a repeat offender murderer, they incorrectly thought he had an outstanding speeding ticket warrant. Aaarrrggghhh! Whiskey!

 

[Mulligan]

Yes, I'm just throwing out a possible scenario. I've never worked LE, and I've never been in jail, so I don't know how these things are handled (I guess I left myself open with that line?).

I would hope that some discretion could be used, and people like this put into 'minimal risk' areas, but maybe that isn't always possible. It does seem extreme for these cases, but I guess the SC ruled on the point that this is a state/local issue and that since it takes place as part of incarceration, it doesn't violate Fed statutes.

-ERD50

I have never been to jail, but my favorite weekend bedtime show is Lockout, which is basically a day in the life at various prisons and jails. They show the strip searches (blurred out the personal areas) and it looks like an assembly line at a factory. The people getting searched dont even bat an eye over it as most of them I assume know the procedure quite well.

 

[glippy]

The people getting searched don't even bat an eye over it as most of them I assume know the procedure quite well.

I won't pretend that a strip search couldn't be a traumatic thing for some people. As for me, I'd feel worse for the poor guy who has to poke around down there than I would about my own indignity.

 

[BigNick]

This stood out for me:

Florence ... had been stopped several times before, and he carried a letter to the effect that the fine ... had been paid.

How much less effort for the cops themselves would it have been to call in and check the veracity of that letter?

 

[scrabbler1]

This stood out for me:

"Florence ... had been stopped several times before, and he carried a letter to the effect that the fine ... had been paid."

How much less effort for the cops themselves would it have been to call in and check the veracity of that letter?

I agree, and followed by this also made me angry:

"The first strip search of Florence took place in the Burlington County Jail in southern New Jersey. Six days later, Florence had not received a hearing and remained in custody. Transferred to another county jail in Newark, he was strip-searched again.

The next day, a judge dismissed all charges. Florence's lawsuit soon followed.

He still may pursue other claims, including that he never should have been arrested."

It took SIX DAYS for him to get a hearing in which all the charges got dismissed? It scares me that this can happen to anyone. If the letter was good enough to be let go previously after being stopped, whywasn't it good enough this time?

Florence wasn't alleging any racial discrimination, but I wonder how he would have been treated had he been white.

I hope he sues and wins.

 

[ERD50]

I agree, and followed by this also made me angry: ....

It took SIX DAYS for him to get a hearing in which all the charges got dismissed? It scares me that this can happen to anyone. If the letter was good enough to be let go previously after being stopped, whywasn't it good enough this time?

...

I hope he sues and wins.

I hope my earlier comments weren't taken by anyone as defending the process. It's more just the fact that we can't judge much from what passes as 'journalism' these days, and few of us have experience form both sides of this, there may be other forces at work (regarding the search).

I am also deeply troubled by the 6 days of incarceration over a mistake. If this reflects reality, I hope he does take it to a court and the court deals with it appropriately.


-ERD50

 

[eytonxav]

I dunno, in some ways the ruling can seem like airline TSA procedures on steriods.

That was my thought as well. For me, profiling and common sense make more sense in situations like this one and for TSA searches vs everyone must be treated identically regardless of the circumstances.

 

[donheff]

I suppose I should read the dissents to see what my fellow liberals had to say on this practice but overall it doesn't surprise me or alarm me. Local jails didn't used to do this decades ago but after problems with drugs, knifes taped up along butt cracks and whatever some of them got pretty aggressive. If I got locked up for whatever -- DUI, multiple unpaid tickets -- I would expect to go through whatever the routine search was be it pat down, strip search, cavity search. The jails are safer applying the process to everyone rather than trying to guess who are the bad, bad guys. I can imagine lots of improper profiling claims if discretion is in play.

 

[MichaelB]

I am also deeply troubled by the 6 days of incarceration over a mistake. If this reflects reality, I hope he does take it to a court and the court deals with it appropriately.


-ERD50

To me this seems to be the real issue. A consistently applied set of rules in the jailhouse to ensure safety and security for all the people there which includes invasive searches looks reasonable. The process that allows an innocent man to be arrested, incarcerated and subject to all that is a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[FinanceDude]

It seems like more and more suits are getting fast-tracked to the US Supreme Court. I think the lower courts should be doing more work on this. Seems everyone wants to dump on the Supreme Court. What about the state laws and their enforcement in issues like this? Easier to change a state law than to let the Supreme Court rule and that precedent becomes the law of the land forever.........