Supreme Court: Strip searches, even for minor offenses

Quote from paperboy05 : Or talk to your State legislatures and have the policies/laws changed

How would they otherwise compel someone to pay outstanding fines?

The state can refuse to issue a drivers license or issue motor vehicle plates/tabs/titles, but those can all be easily circumvented.

There are other means, but the bottom line is: if a person doesn't want to do the time, they should pay the fine.

Quote from hsjpatman : I have no desire to prove it to you as I don't believe for a second that you truly doubt contraband is regularly brought in by corrupt cops/guards/employees.

OK Ryu, keep posting figments of your imagination that cannot be substantiated. We know the drill.....

You did not originally say "regularly brought in" you said "they are the primary source for smuggled in contraband".

Prove it.

Quote from nobama : How would they otherwise compel someone to pay outstanding fines?

No idea, but I was more thinking of the strip search policy. Either way, both things can be changed by legislatures.

Quote from paperboy05 : No idea, but I was more thinking of the strip search policy. Either way, both things can be changed by legislatures.

If the state wants to accept the resulting liabilities.

Quote from Xygonn : Certainly you understand that a jail is a much riskier place than a school, and that tighter measures commensurate with that risk might make sense. Reasonable people will disagree on what the right measures are, but they are probably tighter than poking through your bag (which you wouldn't even get to keep) and having you go through a metal detector. Keep in mind I agree with you on the result (that this is an unreasonable search and seizure) but that the majority of my argument does not hold up under modern reading of the fourth amendment.

I would consider the risk at a jail higher than at a school, but that's to do with the type of people more likely to be in jail than school. It shouldn't necessitate more extreme searches for every person. I don't see that it is at all reasonable to suspect that someone arrested for an unpaid fine is even remotely likely to be smuggling dangerous, non-metal items on his or her person, let alone concealed within his or her person.

So what is to be gained by such extreme measures in such casual circumstances?

Security should be reasonable, not absolute.

Quote from nobama : OK Ryu, keep posting figments of your imagination that cannot be substantiated. We know the drill..... You did not originally say "regularly brought in" you said "they are the primary source for smuggled in contraband". Prove it.

Well even if I prove it you wont recognize it.
You'll just play semantics and say that it doesn't amount to being a "primary source".
So instead of playing your desired semantics game, I'll concede that I was wrong in my use of the word primary.
Now that that's out of the way lets talk about what you were trying to avoid talking about.
The smuggling of contraband by jail personnel.
This is a known problem.
So why would you not advocate strip searching all personnel daily in the interest of keeping non corrupt personnel and inmates safe?
I mean why leave any avenue open?

Quote from skiman : Again, if you could show me any reason to suspect that it is probable that people with unpaid tickets are likely to be smuggling non-metal weapons or drugs in their orifices I'll be happy to reevaluate. Step 1. Strip search people who might be reasonably suspected of having such things. Step 2. Metal detectors and other non-invasive inspection of minor violators. As above, it isn't reasonable (it's absurd, actually) to suspect that people go around with non-metal weapons or drugs keistered just in case they happen to be pulled over for speeding. Something as extreme as a strip search for these people is not practical or valuable. It's unnecessarily invasive and degrading without having any legitimate purpose.

Feel free to continue your assumptions.

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with this? Here I thought people were already searched before they were admitted to jail. Happy to hear that those who will be incarcerated will be thoroughly searched before goin in!

If ya don't like it than don't do the crime

Outrageous.
A person arrested on a traffic violation isn't a threat and shouldn't be treated this way and shouldn't be housed with dangerous criminals.

This court needs to go.

Quote from LivninSC : I'm sorry, but what's wrong with this? Here I thought people were already searched before they were admitted to jail. Happy to hear that those who will be incarcerated will be thoroughly searched before goin in! If ya don't like it than don't do the crime

Did you not read it?
The guy didn't "do the crime".

Quote from skiman : I would consider the risk at a jail higher than at a school, but that's to do with the type of people more likely to be in jail than school. It shouldn't necessitate more extreme searches for every person. I don't see that it is at all reasonable to suspect that someone arrested for an unpaid fine is even remotely likely to be smuggling dangerous, non-metal items on his or her person, let alone concealed within his or her person. So what is to be gained by such extreme measures in such casual circumstances? Security should be reasonable, not absolute.

Would you agree that there are probably some kids who go to school that have proven they are non-threats? Should they still be searched? The problem is that profiling leaves you open to lawsuits, and random and blanket searches don't. It only takes one shiv or bit of contraband brought in by one un-searched inmate to tear apart the whole non-blanket policy.

I, personally, do not think anything substantive is gained from blanket searches. I'm just trying to point out the origin of this kind of legal decision. This would have been unimaginable in the 50's, 60's, or 70's. Schools didn't have checkpoints. Airports had minor private security, like you might see at a mall. The whole thing has gotten out of hand in my opinion. This is merely a symptom of an underlying ill. We (most people that is) have agreed to sacrifice liberty for safety. This all part of a slow progression.

Quote from hsjpatman : Did you not read it? The guy didn't "do the crime".

Well than the issue is that he went to jail in the first place, not that he was searched...

Quote from LivninSC : Well than the issue is that he went to jail in the first place, not that he was searched...

They are both the issue.

Quote from nobama : OK Ryu, keep posting figments of your imagination that cannot be substantiated. We know the drill..... You did not originally say "regularly brought in" you said "they are the primary source for smuggled in contraband". Prove it.

If all the incarcerated prisoners have been thoroughly searched, how else would contraband find its way into a jail/prison aside from those who aren't searched like cops, guards and other jail employees?

Quote from hsjpatman : They are both the issue.

To you.