Supreme Court vs. The Fourth Amendment: KO! - Page 2

**Malorn** · 2012-04-02, 02:52 PM

Meh.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-02, 03:03 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.

Vash02 · 2012-04-02, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

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.

He was guilty of the crime of speeding, dont get that wrong, he was guilty. He had a chance to contest the ticket in a court but he chose to admit guilt and pay the fine and he did. The court system dropped the ball and thought he hadnt paid. The prison did not know he had paid his punishment. From the point of view of the prison, he was caught evading the punishment for his self-admitted crime.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-02, 03:11 PM

Meh.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-02, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Don't twist my words Guru.

At no point did I say you said anything other than what you did. If what you meant to say was 'don't use my words against me', I cannot make that promise.

Originally Posted by Vash

He was guilty of the crime of speeding, dont get that wrong, he was guilty.

He was not guilty of any crime as of the moment of his arrest. I got a speeding ticket once, seven years ago. I paid it. That does not mean that today I am guilty of speeding; it didn't mean I was guilty the day after the state cashed the check.

At the time that he was arrested, and most definitely during the six days he was locked up and being subjected to humiliating searches, he was not guilty of, nor rightfully suspected of, any crime. The state fucked up their paperwork and he paid for it with his dignity, basic rights (straight from the Bill of Rights) and personal freedoms.

And the Supreme Court said this was A-okay with a 5-4 vote. Hence my unhappiness.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-02, 03:35 PM

Meh.

Warborn · 2012-04-02, 03:39 PM

I like this Ben Franklin quote and think it applies here:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

**Malorn** · 2012-04-02, 03:48 PM

Meh.

Vash02 · 2012-04-02, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

I like this Ben Franklin quote and think it applies here:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We are talking about convicted criminals here not the wider population.

He was not guilty of any crime as of the moment of his arrest. I got a speeding ticket once, seven years ago. I paid it. That does not mean that today I am guilty of speeding; it didn't mean I was guilty the day after the state cashed the check.

At the time that he was arrested, and most definitely during the six days he was locked up and being subjected to humiliating searches, he was not guilty of, nor rightfully suspected of, any crime. The state fucked up their paperwork and he paid for it with his dignity, basic rights (straight from the Bill of Rights) and personal freedoms.

And the Supreme Court said this was A-okay with a 5-4 vote. Hence my unhappiness.

He sued the wrong people. He was suing the Jails not the state. If he had sued the state he probably would of won.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-02, 04:08 PM

Have any of you ever even been to prison?

I have. I worked in one as a corrections officer for 5 years.

Everyone crying about this guy's rights is quite frankly misinformed.

You imagine that it's a brutal...painful thing. This guy's rights were OBVIOUSLY trampled upon, I mean how dare they ask a fucking prisoner to submit to a pat down and strip search...how dare they. If you go to any prison, even if it's the county lockup you are put through a pat down and strip search.

They do it to make sure that the prisoners aren't carrying fucking weapons or drugs around.

Shit, even if you visit your family for less than 5 minutes in the common room...you are told before you leave that room to wait in the holding area. They ask the guy to drop his pants...pick up his ballsack...kneel down...and cough so if he's hiding something in his ass...it'll come out. No one ever touches you, their fingers don't go in your ass....you're not touched ONE time. It's a 20 second deal, and you're done. It's non invasive, trust me I know...I DID strip searches every Goddamn day....never touched a prisoner once except for a weapons check pat down.

It's not hard, and it's not unreasonable. He was in JAIL, that's SOP in jail folks.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to control an inmate population if you were told:

"You can't submit a prisoner to a strip search unless you have reasonable probable cause."

I mean there are already enough rules on Correctional personnel as it is. You can't even fight back against a fucking prisoner without being liable for a lawsuit if they attack you. Thank you liberal agenda for that one.

The prisoners have more rights in prison than the actual staff put there to keep them locked up so they don't harm the general public. It's pathetic.

I agree with the decision. Regardless of whether or not they were right in jailing him for six days, or if paperwork was misfiled...whatever the fuck.....the guy was in jail. They can't determine if this guy's rights were being trampled on....all they knew was that they had a prisoner...he was in jail....SOP is to search him at regular intervals to keep the prison SAFE. That's what the supreme court ruled on...and they ruled quite correctly. Why should this guy get special treatment because someone might have fucked up in paperwork?

I guess because everyone's a special little snowflake now.

Life is hard, deal with it.

Warborn · 2012-04-02, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

We are talking about convicted criminals here not the wider population.

We're actually talking about a guy who was innocent of any crime, but was held in prison before that was realized by his captors. But I guess it's fine for people arrested for a speeding ticket fine not being paid to be treated like sub-humans (aka. the general prison populace). Guilty until proven innocent, after all, right?

Vash02 · 2012-04-03, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

We're actually talking about a guy who was innocent of any crime, but was held in prison before that was realized by his captors. But I guess it's fine for people arrested for a speeding ticket fine not being paid to be treated like sub-humans (aka. the general prison populace). Guilty until proven innocent, after all, right?

To the prison he was guilty, he admitted his guilt and to the prison he had evaded his punishment. If someone is sentenced to prison and he runs away, they do not bother to have another trial when they catch him, he goes straight to jail.

Mistakes will always happen, perfection cannot be attained. The only thing we can do is make sure the lessons are learned and the victim is properly compensated for his suffering.

You also seem to think speeding is a trivial matter, as someone who has lost two friends due to speeding it is, I assure you, not a trivial matter.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-03, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

To the prison he was guilty, he admitted his guilt and to the prison he had evaded his punishment. If someone is sentenced to prison and he runs away, they do not bother to have another trial when they catch him, he goes straight to jail.

Mistakes will always happen, perfection cannot be attained. The only thing we can do is make sure the lessons are learned and the victim is properly compensated for his suffering.

You also seem to think speeding is a trivial matter, as someone who has lost two friends due to speeding it is, I assure you, not a trivial matter.

It really is not a trivial matter, you are 100% correct about speeding. Speeding kills a great deal of people.

It was a mistake guys, yes. But at the end of the day, the prison should not have to change their procedures for one man.

Everyone gets strip searched on intake and during visitation times.

It's SOP. The supreme court was correct here. Sorry.

Sgt Shultz · 2012-04-05, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

We're actually talking about a guy who was innocent of any crime, but was held in prison before that was realized by his captors. But I guess it's fine for people arrested for a speeding ticket fine not being paid to be treated like sub-humans (aka. the general prison populace). Guilty until proven innocent, after all, right?

If he is in prison we are beyond that point so your point is misplaced. You are burning the wrong effigy.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-06, 10:58 AM

Meh.