mudcat.org: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!

saulgoldie 03 Apr 12 - 06:25 AM
GUEST,Bluesman 03 Apr 12 - 07:30 AM
Van 03 Apr 12 - 07:48 AM
Will Fly 03 Apr 12 - 07:49 AM
Greg F. 03 Apr 12 - 09:24 AM
catspaw49 03 Apr 12 - 09:51 AM
Bobert 03 Apr 12 - 10:04 AM
GUEST,Eileen. Noraid 03 Apr 12 - 10:22 AM
Stilly River Sage 03 Apr 12 - 10:57 AM
Desert Dancer 03 Apr 12 - 11:32 AM
saulgoldie 03 Apr 12 - 12:33 PM
GUEST,999 03 Apr 12 - 01:19 PM
Greg F. 03 Apr 12 - 01:52 PM
meself 03 Apr 12 - 02:24 PM
catspaw49 03 Apr 12 - 02:32 PM
JohnInKansas 03 Apr 12 - 02:42 PM
GUEST,Eliza 03 Apr 12 - 03:11 PM
Amos 03 Apr 12 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,olddude 03 Apr 12 - 03:31 PM
gnu 03 Apr 12 - 03:37 PM
MGM·Lion 03 Apr 12 - 04:59 PM
Richard Bridge 03 Apr 12 - 05:26 PM
Greg F. 03 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM
gnu 03 Apr 12 - 06:29 PM
JohnInKansas 03 Apr 12 - 07:55 PM
Elmore 03 Apr 12 - 08:10 PM
GUEST,olddude 03 Apr 12 - 08:56 PM
GUEST,olddude 03 Apr 12 - 08:57 PM
gnu 03 Apr 12 - 09:19 PM
Bobert 03 Apr 12 - 09:31 PM
meself 03 Apr 12 - 10:17 PM
Van 04 Apr 12 - 06:31 AM
GUEST,Eliza 04 Apr 12 - 08:17 AM
Greg F. 04 Apr 12 - 09:16 AM
catspaw49 04 Apr 12 - 10:00 AM
MarkS 04 Apr 12 - 05:47 PM
kendall 05 Apr 12 - 03:03 PM
Desert Dancer 05 Apr 12 - 04:47 PM
Desert Dancer 05 Apr 12 - 04:51 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:




Subject: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 06:25 AM

SCOTUS Allows Strip Searches

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:30 AM

Strip searching has been legal in UK prisons for years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12172646


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Van
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:48 AM

The UK goes even further than that. You can be strip searched merely for visiting a prisoner. You are advised of this on the Visiting Order you are given which permits you to see the inmate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:49 AM

Here's a quote from the article cited by Saulgoldie:

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.

So, if they'd strip-searched Timothy McVeigh when he drove without a license plate, would they have found it - or a bomb, perhaps - up his arse? We'll never know.

You have to wonder sometimes at the logic of so-called intelligent men.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 09:24 AM

Good thing the Reagan and Bush appointed Justices aren't "activists", eh? And that they're not trying to legislate?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 09:51 AM

The guy the court case and decision was all about:

"The case decided Monday, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945, arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence 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."

Not only was the info wrong, but Florence knew that it was wrong and had proper documentation to prove it! Also note that it was his wife who was pulled over for speeding. AND they were African Americcans driving a BMW.

Just sayin'.......................


Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:04 AM

Oh, these wacky Republicans... There's not a orifice that they don't find fascinatin'???

Where's "Wide Spread" Craig, BTW???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: GUEST,Eileen. Noraid
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:22 AM

Strip searches of female prisoners have been going on for years in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recently welcomed a judgment in the High Court which criticised the practice of strip searching women prisoners at Hydebank Wood as an "unnecessary and humiliating policy".

The application for judicial review of such searches was brought by a young unnamed mother, a prisoner challenging the conditions under which she is being held at the Centre.

The Commission, which assisted her to bring her case, expressed grave concerns over the lack of in-cell sanitation available to female prisoners at Hydebank Wood and their subjection to strip searches.


The Court listened to her experiences of strip searching, they were often carried out in front of as many as five other officers. The woman was often teased and humiliated by officers. They failed to have proper and explicit regard to her privacy under human rights, the policy of strip searching was "disproportionate, humiliating, degrading and unnecessary".


The Court also found that while the sanitation arrangements for women at Hydebank may "not be ideal", they could not be described as degrading.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:57 AM

Allowing strip searches because jail or prison guards can't be bothered to sort out the violent criminals from those in for petty misdemeanors should appall all who read of this.

Part of the problem is that there are too many people in jail and prison anyway. Non-violent offenders are swelling the ranks when other punishments would be more appropriate. Many of the prisons and jails in the US are privately run and it benefits them to have more people put in prison, so they are behind lobbying to put specific sentences in place (circumventing judges who would use their common sense). And they can't be bothered to sort them out once they're in jail, so they'll strip search everyone.

Municipal jails are in question in this case, and there is no excuse for the information not being conveyed about the nature of the arrest and the reasonable expectation that this man had no deadly weapons or drugs stashed on his person.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 11:32 AM

Yeah, the McVeigh comparison makes no sense to me at all.

The federal prisons and 10 state actually have reasonable rules against this, apparently. I hope others will be moved to legislate appropriate rules.

~ Becky in Tucson

Supreme Court OKs Strip Searches For Minor Offenses (Nina Totenberg, NPR)

Breyer noted that people have been detained and strip-searched for offenses as minor as driving with an inoperable headlight, having outstanding parking tickets, violating a dog leash law, and riding a bike without an audible bell. None of these people could have anticipated being arrested, he said, and none would likely have hidden weapons inside their body cavities.

But Kennedy said that given the number of total arrests each year — 13 million — it would be unworkable for correctional officials to exempt one class of prisoner from strip searches. Indeed, he added, even people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be "the most devious and dangerous criminals." He cited, for instance, the case of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, who was detained initially for driving without a license plate.

"The justices in the majority don't want to micromanage jails," Kerr says. "So they're saying if the people running the jails think they need to do this, they should be able to do this."

Bernard Harcourt, a law professor at the University of Chicago, however, called the decision "frightening ... the kind of logic that can turn a democracy into a police state" because it is premised on the notion of eliminating all risk at the expense of those who reasonably pose little risk.

In fact, at least 10 states outlaw routine strip searches of those arrested for minor charges, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service bar visual body cavity searches for those arrested on misdemeanor or civil contempt charges. "What the court did was to take a practice that was not universal and give it its constitutional imprimatur," says Harvard Law School professor Carol Steiker. The open question, she said, is whether states that have forbidden this practice will not move to permit blanket strip searches of those arrested for minor charges.

Two of the justices in Monday's majority wrote concurring opinions in an apparent effort to soften the tone of the ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said that there might be some cases in which strip searches are not justified because they are conducted on prisoners who are not put in with other prisoners.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 12:33 PM

I, for one, would like to hear some of the Republicans who often post here defend this decision.

Let me personalize it a little so that it is less "parlor discussion" and more "real life" which is what it is. How about if your teenage daughter was caught shoplifting some candy, and strip-searched at the jail in front of four male jailors? Is that not tantamount to rape? And if you say, "No," then defend that position! What would you tell that daughter?

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 01:19 PM

Strip searches are supposed to be done by members of the same sex as the person being searched. However, who knows in America anymore.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 01:52 PM

I thought it was the TeaPublicans and other related lunatics prating on about the dangers of government and the Constitution restricting the powers of government and the need for everyone to have an arsenal of firearms to protect themselves from the government, blah, blah, yadda, yadda ad infinitum, ad naseum.

What do we hear from them about this? Bugger all.

'Bout right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: meself
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 02:24 PM

What the hell is happening to your country?!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 02:32 PM

Religion, fear, poverty, and assholes are a lethal mix for the care and feeding of a society......


Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 02:42 PM

The difficulty with the decision is that an opposite decision by the Court could have been interpreted as prohibiting strip searches in cases where they are appropriate.

The decision doesn't say that every prisoner must be stripped searched. It only allows the method where the detention authorities think it's needed.

A frequently ignored principle in evaluating court decisions, especially for SCOTUS, is that the Court is only allowed to consider questions posed in the complaint, and apparently the petitioners didn't complain about idiots and perverts being allowed to work in detention facilities, so the Court couldn't say "don't do that."

Essentially what the Court said was that it's up to those who make the laws in each jurisdiction to decide when such things are prohibited, and unfortunately that's left to someone else in the system. The Court can only decide whether the laws that exist are permissible according to higher laws, and in the case at hand it's fairly obvious that many lower jurisdictions haven't considered it important to regulate which prisoners are treated in what ways.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:11 PM

Van, as a visitor to many UK prisons, I can say that if a visitor refuses to be strip-searched, it cannot be enforced, merely the Visit is cancelled. This situation only arises if the drug-detection dog indicstes that the visitor is carrying drugs, or the Officers suspect it. They can however call the Police, who will arrest the visitor once he/she steps outside the prison gate. The Police have the right to strip-search the suspect at the Police Station. Prison Officers can only strip-search inmates, not visitors. (I must add that I personally never committed any such crimes or carried drugs while visiting!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:15 PM

Much as I hate the implications of the decision, John is right--SCOTUS' decision reasonably states that the practice of strip-searching all arrestees is not unconstitutional. However, it does seem to violate the unreasonable seizures clause, so I am not sure what they were thinking; they argue on the grounds of what is practicable in implementation, but when did that become the SCOTUS' concern?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:31 PM

I wouldn't mind if it were Christie Brinkley doing the search


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: gnu
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:37 PM

Is there an unreasonable search clause?

Christie Brinkley? All I can think of is... fingernails.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 04:59 PM

Old Dude ~~ I take it you think the thread title should in fact read "Ohgirl!"? {Though as Ms Brinkley is now 58 years old, she might not take so kindly to the designation!}

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 05:26 PM

What OUGHT to be the law is that an authority needed reasonable cause to carry out the strip-search - but that I infer is a matter for state law so not appealable to SCOTUS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


So, screw the Fourth Ammendment. No problem. Amerika the Bee-Youtiful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: gnu
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 06:29 PM

"Is there an unreasonable search clause?"

Thanks Greg f. I kinda thought there might be. >;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:55 PM

In general, in nearly all US jurisdictions, a strip search is considered reasonable only after the person is arrested, and this is specified in most local, state, and other laws, and/or in detention facility rules and procedures.

The usual requirements of "probable cause" for an arrest would apply, but that's a somewhat different matter than whether the search was justified.

In this case, the police had a warrant for arrest for the person involved and he was arrested, based on that warrant, before the search took place.

The comment in several articles on the SCOTUS decision that "not paying a fine isn't a crime" in the place where it all happened is meaningless, since no warrant can be (legally) issued without approval of a judge who finds that probable cause for an arrest exists. Since they had a warrant in hand, the police had no real choice about placing him under arrest. His claim that he "had proof" that the warrant was unjustified is immaterial, since the cops don't hold court in the street.

He could possibly sue for false arrest, although there's probably little real chance of finding someone "responsible" in this case to sue. Since he was "under arrest" at the time, he can't make much of a case over being treated the same as others who are arrested. If the treatment of those arrested is consistent, it's up to the legislatures (and/or chiefs and wardens) to make any needed reforms in how prisoners are handled.

(Others may be more sensitive over this, but being old and ugly I don't much care who looks at what I've got. It's their problem more than mine. Some people might have more cause for shyness, and I think I can understand some cases where it might be a concern.)

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Elmore
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 08:10 PM

Got a patdown at the airport recently. Left a tip.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 08:56 PM

what fourth amendment Greg, have you seen the Patriot act and what they can do for security


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 08:57 PM

or the illusion of security, the earth quakes you feel are Thomas Jefferson kicking his headstone


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: gnu
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 09:19 PM

So, now I suppose it's up to an interpretation of "... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,..."

To my mind, laws cannot be made to cover every instance. Discretion must be left to the police and recourse through the courts must be allowed IF the police act in poor judgement, according to the LAW quoted by Greg F., surely recourse is accessible?

How else can it work?

And, if you just pooh pooh my post and say I don't live in the real world and police can do whatever they want and they routinely hassle and degrade people... I do not believe you. I refuse to believe that all police are bad people and want to degrade teenage girls or anyone else. If you think so, start a petition to have all strip searches recorded on video. Better use of your time rather than telling me that police are bad, bad people that I should live in fear of them. I find that rather childish... they are human... they have families too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 09:31 PM

Here's when this one is going to get a major re-look... When some rich Republican's wife, who has a few outstanding parking tickets, is arrested and strip searched by a black jailer...

I'll guarantee that the 5 Clowns will jump thru hoops to fix this fucked up ruling...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: meself
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:17 PM

I wonder if there was a warrant that did this: "particularly describing the place to be searched"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Van
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:31 AM

Eliza, thanks for your comment. I have only visited a prison once and had no reason to fear a strip search bar one! But the thought of it, when you are not used to such places, does make you worry. Next time i go I won't feel so tense as I now know the drill.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 08:17 AM

Van, I've had pat-downs of various kinds (always by polite and discreet female officers) in a private room. They select a visitor at random and one goes behind a small screen or into a little room. They take down one's hair (I used to have mine tied up) and feel inside one's bra. In B Cat prisons (I've been several times to Parkhurst for example) they use hand-held metal detectors and arches, and drug-sniffing dogs. Even babies must have their nappies removed and a Prison one put on! Nonetheless, I've seen visitors passing drugs over on their visit many a time. But a full internal body search is not permitted. And at any stage one can refuse any type of search, whereupon the Visit is cancelled. I've been in Wormwood Scrubs, Parkhurst, The Mount, Highpoint, Blundeston, Wayland, Hollesley Bay (an open Prison) and Norwich. The Officers know very well who is likely to be carrying something, and if you're pukka you've nothing to be nervous about. I found them professional and polite.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 09:16 AM

...or the illusion of security...

Right the second time, Dan ;>)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 10:00 AM

Greg and Dan.....I think the earthquakes also come from Ben Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

When it comes to shameful laws passed, the Patriot Act is right up there in the top group.


Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: MarkS
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 05:47 PM

I ask TSA for a strip search every time I go through security to get on an airplane.

They always say no.
Geez - a guy just can't have any fun any more.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: kendall
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 03:03 PM

The word Privacy does not appear in the constitution.
4th amendment, define unreasonable.

If a cop takes me into custody and I am armed, I am obligated to tell him/her about the weapon. Anyone have a problem with that? I don't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 04:47 PM

The middle of Linda Greenhouse's latest analysis in the NY Times (which is about the health care mandate case) looks at the strip search opinion(s) and does note that the justices in part 4/IV of the opinion advocated that exceptions may exist:

What's intriguing is Part 4. This section offered an important qualification to the holding. There may be exceptions to the rule, Justice Kennedy said. Keeping a detainee out of the general prison population "may diminish the need to conduct some aspects of the searches at issue." Searches that involve touching – as those at issue in the case did not – may raise "legitimate concerns." There was no need to get more specific, Justice Kennedy said, because "these issues are not implicated on the facts of this case." [I thought they specifically were??]

His opinion was joined in full, including Part 4, by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Alito. Both the chief justice and Justice Alito wrote concurring opinions to "emphasize the limits of today's holding," as Justice Alito put it. "It is important for me that the court does not foreclose the possibility of an exception to the rule it announces," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. Clearly, these two justices were troubled by the implications of the decision, and wanted its limits to be understood.

Among this edgy majority, one voice was missing: that of Justice Clarence Thomas. "Justice Thomas joins all but Part IV of this opinion," a footnote on the first page informs us. But Justice Thomas couldn't be bothered to explain himself, at least not in public. Presumably he shared his thoughts at some point with his colleagues. We're left to infer that what he wanted was a bright-line rule that would admit no exceptions, no circumstance under which a strip search might be so uncalled-for as to violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches.


Thomas is one strange bird.

~ Becky in Tucson


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Strip Searches...Ohboy!
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 04:51 PM

Heavens! Forgot the link: 'Embarrass the Future?', Linda Greenhouse in the NYT.

~ B in T


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 26 February 3:59 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.