Supreme Court vs. The Fourth Amendment: KO!

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-02, 12:45 PM

The Supreme court ruled against a man who was strip searched, twice, after being arrested for a traffic ticket he had already paid.

Now's the part where we see if the folks who truly consider the Constitution to be a holy document that is perfect and not at all in need of revision come to the defense of the justices who ruled on this case.

Cliff Notes: the 4th Amendment protects against 'unreasonable search and seizure'. The justices ruled that the local authorities know best when to conduct strip searches, and on whom.

My opinion: This was a horrible miscarriage of justice and a sad commentary that the conservative leanings seem to be paradoxically a mish-mash of "Don't Tread On Me" small-government keep-your-hands-off-my-guns freedom lovers, who nevertheless don't seem to extend that to the physical body cavities of the citizenry.

I mean, we're talking about the government putting it's fingers literally inside your most personal bodily orifices. Read the details: He was made to strip naked, turn around a bunch of times, squat, lift up his genitals, etc. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, congratulations: you're not a sociopath.

Now of course strip searches can and sometimes are perfectly necessary, and the 4th Amendment only protects against searches that are 'unreasonable'. However, this guy was no criminal. He'd paid the fine. The warrant hadn't been updated, which as far as I can tell is the government's fault. And yet he was detained for six days, and twice forced to strip naked and submit to humiliating searches.

I'd worry less about the government coming to take my guns, and instead worry more about the government grabbing my junk and shoving its fingers up my rectum just because they deem it necessary, and for that authority to rest with the guy fingering me.

Quovatis · 2012-04-02, 01:03 PM

Yeah, seems pretty ridiculous.

The bigger question is why they put him in jail in the first place, and with the general population for a simple fine that he had proof that he paid. Put in jail for 6 days for that???? wow

**Malorn** · 2012-04-02, 01:05 PM

Meh.

Quovatis · 2012-04-02, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Context matters. The way you wrote that slant piece you made it sound like he got stopped for a traffic ticket and got strip searched, which is not what happened. Nice propaganda piece though.

That pretty much IS what happened. It was a traffic stop, they see he has a warrant for an unpaid fine, he has a letter proving that he paid it, they take him to jail anyway for 6 days. Seems very unreasonable to strip search the guy (twice), much less put him in jail at all. After 6 days, a judge let him free, discovering he had indeed paid the fine as his letter attested.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-02, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

You left out the part where he was in prison and it was standard procedure to search all new inmates regardless of the crime that put them in there. There was no 4th Ammendment violation here.

Context matters. The way you wrote that slant piece you made it sound like he got stopped for a traffic ticket and got strip searched, which is not what happened. Nice propaganda piece though.

He was arrested for a nonexistent crime; he'd paid the ticket, but was handcuffed and brought in anyway. Held for six days. Strip searched twice. Those are the events, which I never altered. The ruling was that the strip searches were okay because they are generally okay and there for his 'protection'. Those words are direct from the source.

I know he was in custody. It doesn't matter to me in what order he was strip searched, or in what room of the county lockup. What matters to me is we've given authority for them to strip search anybody, for any reason they can claim is 'reasonable', and as this ruling proves, that reasoning can stretch so far that it seems to me that the only way to get it proven to be UNreasonable would be if you had proof that the police officer was getting off on it.

The fact is, the guy was no criminal, and yet was held for a week and sent through two humiliating searches that were clear violations of his constitutional rights. I don't agree with that.

We've already got TSA agents fondling us through our clothes (with the back of their hands, like that makes a difference). What's the stop eventual rulings finding that maybe they can randomly strip-search people at airports, for our 'protection'. How is that not big government? Hell, how is that not a terrifying government.

This could have been any of us. Get a ticket, forget to pay... okay, my bad, I forgot, I pay it and we're square. Weeks later I'm arrested because the state keeps shitty records and I have to have some guy I don't know fondling my genitals, making me parade around nude in front of him, and inserting his finger inside me? For my protection?

If this isn't a clear violation of the 4th amendment, then the amendment needs to be re-written so that it's more clear.

Vash02 · 2012-04-02, 01:22 PM

Yeah, if your going into jail with the general population you should be searched. They were wrong for putting him into jail obviously and he should be compensated for the humiliation the state put him through due to the states incompetence.

Figment · 2012-04-02, 01:26 PM

Ow.

On all counts.

Vash02 · 2012-04-02, 01:28 PM

sheppy, think of it from the prisons point of view. They have been handed a guy who they have been told broke the law. They dont know the details of each and every case that goes through their doors but they have a duty of care to their inmates and that means searching ALL prisoners for contraband and weapons.

The man in the case obviously has a case against the police department for arresting him in the first place and the state for not cancelling his warrant but I dont believe he had a case against the prison.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-02, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

sheppy, think of it from the prisons point of view. They have been handed a guy who they have been told broke the law. They dont know the details of each and every case that goes through their doors but they have a duty of care to their inmates and that means searching ALL prisoners for contraband and weapons.

The man in the case obviously has a case against the police department for arresting him in the first place and the state for not cancelling his warrant but I dont believe he had a case against the prison.

I disagree.

While I understand that we live in a world of gray areas, I feel that we can err on both sides; by always assuming the best, or always assuming the worst.

Of course we would significantly reduce prison contraband and weapon smuggling by subjecting every single inmate to strip searches. The problem is, we are a country that respects the rights of everyone, inmates included. It's why we don't torture them, or sell them as property anymore. We recognize that they have rights that cannot be infringed. That's part of what conceptually makes the USA a country worth living in.

We live in a world of gray areas and while that is inconvenient and will always lead to difficulty, the easy way out is rarely the best. I imagine we could cut crime significantly by existing in a perpetual police state, by installing cameras in everyone's house, and by subjecting everyone and anyone to random warrant-less searches. But the ends do not justify the means.

What we have right now is a situation where it is very possible where an innocent, law abiding citizen can be arrested, detained for a week, and repeatedly subjected to invasive searches without any probable cause. Let's take it a step further. We not only live in a country where this is possible; we live in a country where the highest court just endorsed it.

I would rather live in a society of dangerous gray areas, than a society of guaranteed safety at the cost of personal dignity and basic rights. More and more that country is not looking like the United States of America.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-02, 02:40 PM

Meh.

Vash02 · 2012-04-02, 02:47 PM

No, there should be harsher consequences for police departments and prosecuters for imprisoning innocent people and infringing their rights. However, those conducting the search in this case did have reasonable suspicions that he was guilty. He was delivered to them by the police department and the state had a warrant for his arrest.

Also your wrong about Prisoners not being treated as a commodity by the way. When you have private prisons and unlimited lobbying by companies who own those prisons, prisoners being treated as a commodity is the inevitable outcome.

Figment · 2012-04-02, 02:59 PM

Are those police cells shared cells, or personal cells? If personal, I don't see any reason why ... no, let me rephrase that, who is going to stuff up stuff up their arse with the idea they'll have to break out of jail for a speeding fine in the first place?

Sorry but a body cavity search (which in some legislation comes down to the definition of rape, ie. entering a body cavity without consent) for an overdue fine? :P

Really?`

Also:

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-02, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

Also your wrong about Prisoners not being treated as a commodity by the way. When you have private prisons and unlimited lobbying by companies who own those prisons, prisoners being treated as a commodity is the inevitable outcome.

The prison system is almost immeasurably broken, I agree. If that was in fact what you were alluding, which is what I'm assuming it was. If it wasn't, it still works to bolster my statement.

The prison (and lockup) he was sent to had no reason to believe he was guilty of anything. He hadn't been prosecuted, convicted, sentenced... any of that. This isn't the 17th century. It's not like they had to wait for that information to show up via the Pony Express. There should have been no question at any time of his 'guilt' or 'innocence'. On another thread on this board I happen to know that you, Malorn, are vehemently defending an individual who is being convicted in the public eye of a possible crime not yet investigated.

In this thread's care, this was a man who was definitely innocent, and yet subjected to a humiliating violation of his rights, and the Supreme Court upheld the treatment. That is a bit more severe than being a public pariah. This is the highest court in the land saying 'Even though you were wrongfully arrested and innocent of any crime, we were well without our rights to violate yours.'

If you're going to stand up for the rights of a man you presume is innocent, then stand up for the violated rights of someone we know was innocent.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-02, 03:52 PM

Meh.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-02, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Humiliating? Yeah I'd imagine so. But if people didn't try to smuggle things into prison that way then they wouldn't have the policy. And if they didn't have the policy people would definitely smuggle things in that way.

Allow me to turn that statement around in a way that may strike closer to home for you.

"If people didn't try to [shoot each other with guns] then they wouldn't have the policy [to take everyone's guns away]." I feel that it fits, because it's a blanket policy put in place to respond to an occasional crime.

I know the response to this: criminals will still have guns, so it doesn't solve anything to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Here's the part where I drive the point home:

Even with the strip searches, contraband still gets in. There's no point in subjecting people to these searches unless there is adequate probable cause to do so.

There are numerous policy changes we can make. For one; perhaps we have different holding facilities for convicted criminals vs. those awaiting conviction, complete with separate policies. Perhaps a revision of our screening procedures are called for. Perhaps our entire penitentiary system is broken from the ground up and needs a wholesale re-evaluation.

If a single innocent person finds their basic rights violated, then the system is broken. Even if it works 99.999% of the time, it's still broken, and needs to be improved. Because I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to volunteer to have my dignity violated to support a broken system.