who agrees with the strip search ruling

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: April 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote 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.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1



It's still a discretionary call. Barney is still allowed to search Otis for his 'spare' half-pint.

constitutional search and seizure refers to needing warrants or permission to search homes, buildings etc

jaywalking isnt a lock up offense, unless you have existing warrant/s for your arrest, and are stupid enough to jaywalk in front of a cop and he runs your ID.

the overreaching law sucks large until you need them ... if you dont want a cop looking in your shorts for something that could be used to injure him/her or anyone else after they go to lockup then dont break a law that can get you arrested.

Kinda like scanners at airports .. dont like them? Take the bus.

The problem is that innocent people can be arrested. In fact, in our judicial system, it used to be that a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty. Obviously, that has gone by the wayside like so many of our rights and freedoms. Might as well get used to it. This is a police state now. You have no rights anymore.

innocent people have always been arrested ... you said it yourself

(used to be) until proven guilty

how many people have been ceared of prison time since dna testing came of age?


not much has changed other than the number of people in the country ... more people more crimes.

Oh we're talking jail? Man I thought we were talking airports.

Of course they strip you when you get thrown in Jail... I think they like it too.

Kayla, I'd love to strip search you, and let you handle my "nightstick."

CJ7, that was kind of my point. You don't know if they are a Timmothy McVey when you have them in custody for jaywalking.

And secondly, why is anyone in jail for such minor infractions of the law anyway? That alone speaks of overreaching law enforcement. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

That was exactly what I was trying to say in my post to JackieS. There is major money incentive to put people in jail for minor offenses. Your going to have to pay fines and fees out the wazu if you end up there. Again the partial strip search and patting down is done before you are photographed, fingerprinted and put in the holding cell. The invasive shit comes when they are processing you into the jail and thats when people really get upset.

I am still amazed that the guy whose court case went all the way to the SC was strip searched like that 3 times though. One would think after it is done once you pretty much know that person doesn't have anything in them or on them.

How easily Americans give up their rights for a little bit of security eh? We are so afraid of our own shadows now we just give those rights up without a whimper anymore.

How easily Americans give up their rights for a little bit of security eh? We are so afraid of our own shadows now we just give those rights up without a whimper anymore. Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

Excellent point.

define minor offenses


if a law is broken and it results in an arrest, not a warning, then obviously its not a minor offense ... being arrested is fairly serious on most any level.

Americans have the right to make the decision whether to break the laws or not .. if they get pissed when theyre being processed its on them, not the law they broke


funny how that shit works isnt it?

Odd how quickly we forget our Constitution. In the old days, a person was not to be subjected to "cruel and unusual" punishment. Being strip searched for a being SUSPECTED of committing a misdemeanor would appear to fall into that category. Oh, yeah. And forget about that presumption of innocence when they reach up your ass to see if you are carrying a knife.

And never forget, if you are arrested, you must be guilty, because the police never make a mistake. That damned old Constitution. Just gets in the way of orderly society.

yet you seem to forget you get arrested prior to a trial to determine your guilt, the arresting officers have no say either way ..

define minor offenses


if a law is broken and it results in an arrest, not a warning, then obviously its not a minor offense ... being arrested is fairly serious on most any level.

Americans have the right to make the decision whether to break the laws or not .. if they get pissed when theyre being processed its on them, not the law they broke


funny how that shit works isnt it? Originally Posted by CJ7

Wait.. wut? you do know you can be arrested and taken to jail without ever being charged with anything? Arrests on minor offenses happen all the damn time..lol

What world do you live in?

Wait.. wut? you do know you can be arrested and taken to jail without ever being charged with anything? Arrests on minor offenses happen all the damn time..lol

What world do you live in? Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

this world



Arresting is the physical act of taking someone into custody. It is normally performed by police officers.

Charging is the act of proceeding in court with a prosecution against someone for committing a crime. It is normally performed by prosecutors.

A person who has not been charged can be arrested. The police then bring information to the prosecutors, who then decide whether to charge. If the prosecutor declines to charge, the police normally must let the person go.

A person who has not been arrested can be charged. The prosecutors can write up and present the charges, and have a judge issue a warrant for the arrest of the suspect. Sometimes years can go by before the charged person is located and arrested.

Normally, the police can arrest someone if there is a judge-issued arrest warrant against the person, or if the police have probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime. In some states the police cannot arrest for certain misdemeanors without a warrant, or without personally witnessing the crime.
Normally, the prosecutor must have probable cause to believe the person committed a crime in order to charge them. In some jurisdictions, the prosecutor's decision must be confirmed by a grand jury or the charge is dismissed. Elsewhere, the defendant may have the right to have a judge decide on whether there is probable cause.


and you?

NORMALLY the prosecutor must have probable cause to believe a person committed a crime in order to charge them? Seriously, NORMALLY?!

That is a requirement in EVERY case. EVERY case! But again, that is in the Constitution, and who cares about that anymore.

Jesus, normally. Scotty, beam me up!

NORMALLY the prosecutor must have probable cause to believe a person committed a crime in order to charge them? Seriously, NORMALLY?!

That is a requirement in EVERY case. EVERY case! But again, that is in the Constitution, and who cares about that anymore.

Jesus, normally. Scotty, beam me up! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

One beam headed your way!!