• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

High court upholds jailhouse strip searches(edited)

Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

How did you tie SCOTUS to Republicans again? I missed that part.

:lamo That was great. Short, sweet and to the point. :lamo
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Extremely stupid straw man there. I never said anything like that at all. Jail =/= prison. One is for guilty people and one is for detaining people who were recently arrested. This person was wrongfully detained for not paying parking tickets, when he had paid them, and stripped searched. Ridiculous.

Let's see how supportive people are of this when some punk-assed 20 year old starts pulling pretty mothers and daughters over and books them for a peak. You have far too much trust in authority. But you are a modern conservative so always siding with authority is to be expected.

jail and prison are the exact same in one very key aspect... in both places, you are in custody.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Sorry. Not going to educate you on who appointed the SCOTUS' and how their rulings have been rather consistently partisan.

So Ginsberg is a Republican? Educate us on that.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

So Ginsberg is a Republican? Educate us on that.

Never said she was. 5-4 split. 5 conservatives. Of course you knew that and insist on trolling I suppose.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

So much for conservative values from our uber right wing 5 in the SCOTUS.


High court upholds jailhouse strip searches

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled against a New Jersey man who was strip searched in two county jails following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine that he had, in reality, paid.

The decision resolved a conflict among lower courts about how to balance security and privacy. Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, lower courts generally prohibited routine strip searches for minor offenses. In recent years, however, courts have allowed jailers more discretion to maintain security, and the high court ruling ratified those decisions.

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.​


This is where libertarians and I get along just fine in agreeing that the GOP believes that privacy is not a value of any kind for Americans because Republicans are too scared and IMO, this makes them too scared to run the country.

Ben Franklin was right. We gotta get these activist cowards out of the Judicial system. They always side with authority over the people.



just curious-do you believe people buying firearms should have to fill out a form 4473 and provide ID and submit to a background check?
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Never said she was. 5-4 split. 5 conservatives. Of course you knew that and insist on trolling I suppose.

You started this trolling thread.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

just curious-do you believe people buying firearms should have to fill out a form 4473 and provide ID and submit to a background check?

Yep. I think that's fair.

I'm also understanding the argument that incarceration deserves inspection. It makes sense. I'm just peeved that you can be falsely accused over a measley freegin' fine that was already paid, arrested and strip-searched all on a trumped up charge. Infuriates me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Yep. I think that's fair.

I'm also understanding the argument that incarceration deserves inspection. It makes sense. I'm just peeved that you can be falsely accused over a freegin' fine, arrested and strip-searched all on a trumped up charge. Infuriates me.

42 USC sec. 1983
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

I agree with the ruling too.


And once a felon gets to the big house, as far as I'm concerned, they have no rights beyond cruel and unusual punishment and the SCOTUS has no longer the obligation to be concerned for them at all. Just my two-cents.

I hate convicts. Screw 'em.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

I agree with the ruling too.


And once a felon gets to the big house, as far as I'm concerned, they have no rights beyond cruel and unusual punishment and the SCOTUS has no longer the obligation to be concerned for them at all. Just my two-cents.

I hate convicts. Screw 'em.

If you took a better look at our system, hating them isn't exactly the cure to stopping them. I'd rather focus on not hating them because then you don't give a **** about their treatment and once that happens and everyone turns a blind eye to the penal system you create what considered a university for felons. A place that takes in criminals and puts out people more educated on how to be a criminal. Compassion is a strength. Not a weakness. And I know that saying that is repulsive to say in our machismo mindset but those countries that grasp it have a lower recidivism rate therefore less criminal activity in their society. That should be the goal.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

42 USC sec. 1983

Not sure if a 2nd amendment discussion is for this thread but I will say that I'm kind of a Jeffersonian on the topic. Not exactly but close.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Not sure if a 2nd amendment discussion is for this thread but I will say that I'm kind of a Jeffersonian on the topic. Not exactly but close.

42 USC 1983 is about suing for deprivation of constitutional rights by state actors acting under colour of state law
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

If you took a better look at our system, hating them isn't exactly the cure to stopping them. I'd rather focus on not hating them because then you don't give a **** about their treatment and once that happens and everyone turns a blind eye to the penal system you create what considered a university for felons. A place that takes in criminals and puts out people more educated on how to be a criminal. Compassion is a strength. Not a weakness. And I know that saying that is repulsive to say in our machismo mindset but those countries that grasp it have a lower recidivism rate therefore less criminal activity in their society. That should be the goal.

If you took a better look at our system, hating them isn't exactly the cure to stopping them.

Oh, I have the cure to stopping them. But the best they will let me do is hate them.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

42 USC 1983 is about suing for deprivation of constitutional rights by state actors acting under colour of state law

Well you segued into it with a 2nd amendment lead in then I looked it up:


Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.​


Kind of written in legaleze greek. From what I'm getting out of it is that you are saying that the guy has the right to sue due to the injury of a wrongful incarceration?
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Which is exactly what this ruling is about.



I see, all "accused" right or wrong are subject to whatever perversions the authority throws at them. You keep putting your faith in authority. I'll keep my faith with the people.
Unless they knew otherwise. You can't blame the guards for not knowing otherwise. The court only decided that for this reason, the guards acted within their authority.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Unless they knew otherwise. You can't blame the guards for not knowing otherwise. The court only decided that for this reason, the guards acted within their authority.

Well said.

I'll post a part of the dissenting opinion:


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.

link...


I agree and think that an overdue fine isn't reasonable suspicion for that kind of invasion of privacy much less a false accusation of an overdue fine.
 
Last edited:
There can always be "reasonable suspicion" if you want it bad enough.

I would be a bit more careful in the jail house setting but in the big house, bend 'em over and run forceps up their ass. I don't care.
 
I couldn't be a traffic cop nor a detective. I think many of the regulatory and minor laws are just BS and the fines/punishments worse. Not all of course. Plus there is a real potential that in uniform I would have one of my extreme violent outbursts against a child abuser or severe woman beater.

There is a plus to being a backwoods fish and wildlife supervisor in remote areas, though plenty of people. All the power of a trooper if I want, but don't have to.

I essentially never write a ticket and even less often arrest someone. If I feel something has to be done, usually I will give the person an alternative self-imposed punishment to inflict on him/herself OR if not, then I will go the law-route.

For example if I see someone tearing across a slow zone in their boat or PWC, too much to be allowed, I will probably give the choice between a ticket (very costly) OR - at the person's choice - they can pour a quart of salt water into their fuel tank with the motor(s) running. They'll always pick that one, asking then how will they get to shore? Not my decision I'll explain, though I advise against swimming because they're in bull shark water.

Or one of the crotch rocket bikers doing 100 mph on the curving roads in a 45. I could write a 20+ ticket OR - if he prefers - he can use my pocket knife and cut his plug wires - explaining it also his choice whether to leave it here and walk, wait for someone to pick him up or push it the miles back - explaining if he leaves it probably someone will steal it.

Or if shooting illegal game I could impound his gun, vehicle, arrest him and take him to jail OR if he prefers - he can walk out to the center of a nearby sawgrass marsh until I say stop, stay there 15 minutes until I shout again and come back. He'll take that one - through the ticks, spiders, remote chance of a hog or gator and a certainty for that 45 minutes of struggling out there and back he'll be slapping himself in the face for the million mosquitos on him (I call it the "Skitter Slap Dance.") If is a bit more serious, he also my have to throw if rifle/shotgun in one of those mucky holes no one dare swim in - though I suppose he could drag in some little inflatable to try to fish it out.

Its not uncommon for me to seemingly come out of nowhere telling one in a group of hunters - they startled - "That's a sharp looking AR15. Give it to me." He'll say, "Why, are you taking it?" Response, "Give me that god damn rifle, give it to me now or I'll beat the s..t out of you and take it anyway" as I approach, then just grabbing it with "gimme it! What the hell's wrong with you?"

I ask people "what the hell's wrong with you?" fairly often.

Big crimes? I don't really deal with those. A very few felony arrests. They joke the closest think I have to a Miranda warning is "Sit down, shut up and no one gets hurt" - but I dont' interrogate then either. I

I suppose in the country someone like me can get away with backwoods justice. But often I'm dealing with backwoods type people and they respect that kind of law. Urban cops, cops in large departments etc have to act according to gobs of rules. Backwoods law is more like Andy Griffith but with a quick kick-ass mannerish when appropriate.

Doing a strip search on a guy because of an unpaid ticket? That's not even a conviction. Because of the 1 in 10,000 or less chance he happened to have drugs in a condom shoved up his ass? For that, humilate and degrade everyone no manner how minor or mistaken on a piss-ass unpaid ticket?

I don't like it when law enforcement gets extreme rights over citizens on platitudes beyond what rights citizens get that are similar. Do citizens have a right to demand a strip search of officers before they search his car or house to make certain they are planting drugs? No. But that does happen. Rare, but happens, like its rare someone arrested on an unresolved ticket has something shoved up his butt or in his mouth when arrested.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. But then maybe things have to be different in the mass of large cities.

Hey, I'm just killing time with these ramblin posts...
 
Last edited:
Jon Stewart had a good bit tonight on this issue. It's not posted on the net just yet though.
 
Jon Stewart had a good bit tonight on this issue. It's not posted on the net just yet though.

I'll be watching for it.
 
I'll be watching for it.

Also check out Jon Stewart's interview. It's on topic rather well to. They guy they arrested and strip-searched got totally ****ed too.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

First, Franklin's quote has nothing to do with this case. He was referring to laws that restrict freedom to gain security.

Second, this guy was accused of a violation and arrested. His strip search was part of the effort of the guards to prevent dangerous weapons, drugs and other contraband from entering the prison system. The fact that he was wrongly accused does not negate the need to keep contraband from the prison population.
I think this case was about the county jails, not prison.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Well said.

I'll post a part of the dissenting opinion:


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.

link...


I agree and think that an overdue fine isn't reasonable suspicion for that kind of invasion of privacy much less a false accusation of an overdue fine.
I'm sure that's not the only reason why they stripped search him.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

Until it happens to you I'm sure you'll feel that way. I'd rather stand for something when its wrong even BEFORE it happens to me.

But Kennedy focused on the fact that Florence was held with other inmates in the general population.
 
Re: Fear rules the right wing SCOTUS

I've been detained nine times and never strip searched. The last time was in 1991. I guess it's different now. I'd better walk the line.

Added: It would be very difficult to not cut the cheese at the right moment. The added ASSault charge wouldn't be worth it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom