[subego]

Supreme Court: Strip searches OK - Chicago Sun-Times

Seems like an unnecessarily broad decision to me, but I'm open to arguments.

[andi*pandi]

That is repellant.

[mattyb]

All together now :

BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ....

[subego]

I can semi-see an argument where it should be up to individual states to determine their own policy free of government interference.

[subego]

I'm curious what the people here who tend to fly with the conservative half of the court think about this.

[The Final Dakar]

I agree with Breyer's dissent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I agree with Breyer's dissent.

I agree philosophically.

It seems to me the problem may be there's no federal law regarding this, which would theoretically tie the SC's hands.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm curious what the people here who tend to fly with the conservative half of the court think about this.

Especially since it was the Obama administration that wanted this unnecessary policy.

The amazing thing about this case is the background behind it: a black man was arrested during a traffic stop when he wasn't even driving, on an overturned warrant (he even had the proof on paper on his person during the arrest, and the cops deliberately ignored it!!), then he was held overnight for no reason and strip-searched twice for no reason.

No reason to be pulled over, no reason to be arrested, no reason to be strip-search. It's no wonder the US is a crime-ridden hell hole, the cops are too busy tormenting the law-abiding people instead of chasing after actual criminals.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Especially since it was the Obama administration that wanted this unnecessary policy.

It did?

[lpkmckenna]

It did: Salon - The Obama DOJ and strip searches.

[subego]

Wow. Nice.

Thanks for the link!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm curious what the people here who tend to fly with the conservative half of the court think about this.

I think it's bullshit.

But then again, I'm Liberitarian, what do I know.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

It did?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It did: Salon - The Obama DOJ and strip searches.

Hardly suprising.

After Obama signed the NDAA, he'll continue to trample individual liberties in the USSA.

-t

[subego]

I'm more surprised about not hearing about it.

[subego]

The most aggressive defense of strip-searching, without any notable limits, came from a Justice Department lawyer, speaking for the federal government.  Nicole A. Saharsky, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, resorted to sometimes fanciful conjecture about how even individuals arrested for the most petty crimes — including political protesters — might actually be lurking conspirators to get guns, knives and drugs into jails or prisons.  Her strongly emotional argument was notably short on hard evidence to prove her point.   She also qualified the breadth of her argument by suggesting that she was proposing no limits only on strip-searches carried out when an arrestee was going to be put into a general jail population, instead of being segregated in a holding cell.

Remarkably, she said that federal prison officials give inmates a choice of being strip-searched and then placed with all other prisoners, or being placed — without a strip-search — in a cell.  Chief Justice Roberts wondered why anyone would ever choose the former, and Saharsky said that computers are available for those in the general population, but not in a cell.  That somewhat bizarre response fairly typified the core of her argument.

Argument recap: No flat rule on strip-searches? : SCOTUSblog

[ghporter]

The court's decision seems to argue that anyone brought in for confinement could potentially be able to provide weapons or other contraband to others already confined. Considering the lengths to which some groups of criminals go to continue their criminal acts (following a wounded enemy to an emergency room to finish him off, etc.), I'm saddened to say that this decision has (repellant though it is) some reasonable merit.

[subego]

Luckily, I've never been to jail, but I have friends who have, here in Chicago.

According to them, the most valuable contraband is a pen and paper, because the phone they let you use is blocked from calling cell phones.

Unless you've memorized someone's land line number you're SoL. Of course your "address book" (cel phone) is confiscated and unavailable to you.

When people get sprung, it's "write down phone numbers, I'll call them when I'm outside".

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by subego 

the phone they let you use is blocked from calling cell phones

Why on earth. So many people are giving up landlines, a lot of my friends don't even have a landline.

How do they justify it, by saying only criminals use cell phones and they don't want prisoners calling criminals?

Dang, I'm so gangsta.

[subego]

I have no idea why. It certainly strikes me as an acutely ****ed up situation.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

What? You mean to say jail might be a slightly inconvenient place!?! OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

As for strip searches of minor offenders: As a blanket policy, no, that's ridiculous. On a case by case basis where there's a reasonable suspicion, yes. Big Government doesn't do common sense, just 'one size fits all' for everything.