Unreasonable search and seizure

[kallend 1,647]

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 no warrants shall issue, 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.

How does this square with today's SCOTUS ruling on strip searches?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

Doubtful that most of us would have to worry about this type of search.

[JohnRich 4]

Perhaps you should provide a link to a story so everyone knows what you're talking about.
Or are you intentionally trying to hide the nature of these strip searches?

[normiss 622]

Jail and/or prison 'introductory dates".

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Perhaps you should provide a link to a story so everyone knows what you're talking about.
Or are you intentionally trying to hide the nature of these strip searches?

Albert Florence was forced to undress and submit to strip searches following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine, though the fine actually had been paid. Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

The question posed in this case was, according to the dissent, whether the Fourth Amendment permits a suspicionless "strip searches of those arrestees
entering a jail’s general population."

The Majority found that the search was reasonable in this case because there was no alternative but to put the guy in jail with the general population but limited the opinion to this case.

I would have dissented. But the opinion isn't too broad. Like it or not, the guy did have a warrant, the validity of which isn't something that the police can determine. I think Kennedy's opinion was based more upon not creating a judicial mess than actually on the COnstitutionality. Which crimes are serious enough for strip searches and which are not is an issue that Kennedy did not want to deal with now or in the future.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

The question posed in this case was, according to the dissent, whether the Fourth Amendment permits a suspicionless "strip searches of those arrestees
entering a jail’s general population."

The Majority found that the search was reasonable in this case because there was no alternative but to put the guy in jail with the general population but limited the opinion to this case.

I would have dissented. But the opinion isn't too broad. Like it or not, the guy did have a warrant, the validity of which isn't something that the police can determine. I think Kennedy's opinion was based more upon not creating a judicial mess than actually on the COnstitutionality. Which crimes are serious enough for strip searches and which are not is an issue that Kennedy did not want to deal with now or in the future.

Is an "unpaid" fine (not even defined as a crime)probable cause for a strip search?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you should provide a link to a story so everyone knows what you're talking about.
Or are you intentionally trying to hide the nature of these strip searches?

Albert Florence was forced to undress and submit to strip searches following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine, though the fine actually had been paid. Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.

That's a completely different issue. Do you want to talk about whether or not he should have been arrested in the first place, or what happened to him after he was arrested?

While you're on screwed-up laws in New Jersey, wanna talk about the Brian Aitkin case? Sentenced to seven years in prison for two legally-owned guns:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15/brian-aitkens-mistake

[lawrocket 3]

As I said, I would have dissented.

However, "probable cause" for seizure was already there - that's why he was arrested. Then there was the administrative search.

I think that the police should have been required to at least show a reasonable suspicion that he was carrying contraband. I don't like this opinion one bit.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

The reason to prohibit unreasonable search and seizure is the tendency of the government to wield their power capriciously and without restraint.

Nothing illustrates that more than this case, in which the guy had ALREADY paid the fine and yet was detained, arrested, strip searched, and then held in jail for six days. That's horrible.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wmw999 2,148]

There are situations (and this appears to be one of them), where we have legal systems in place that allow unreasonable escalation based on what is potentially a very minor infraction.

Starting with an unpaid misdemeanor fine and ending with a strip search and jail is out of proportion.

Frankly, starting with an offense of WWB (walking while black) and ending with being shot is also out of proportion. Even with his potential contribution.

There is a certain pain-in-the-ass-ness of having to go before a court and justify your actions. Yeah, it's not always best, but having to formally justify one's actions when they seriously impact someone is probably good.

Maybe that's how we help to figure out what's "unreasonable" about a search and seizure when technology keeps moving the boundaries of what can be done easily.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Perhaps you should provide a link to a story so everyone knows what you're talking about.
Or are you intentionally trying to hide the nature of these strip searches?

Netiquette aside, doing THIS took me about 10 seconds.

So did THIS.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Starting with an unpaid misdemeanor fine and ending with a strip search and jail is out of proportion.
Wendy P.

He had already paid the fine--years earlier. He carried evidence with him that he had paid the fine. He carried that evidence because he had previously been stopped several times before. The cops did not care and arrested him anyway, despite him having committed no crime.

At the very least having to go to court to justify the strip search might have given Albert Florence a chance to present his evidence before a judge earlier and prevented him from spending six days in jail.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

As I said, I would have dissented.

However, "probable cause" for seizure was already there - that's why he was arrested. Then there was the administrative search.

.

I didn't read an exception in the amendment for "administrative" purposes.

Not paying a fine (which he had paid anyway) is NOT probable cause for believing he had contraband in his body cavities.

If it could happen this guy it could happen to anyone who'd paid a speeding ticket (unless, of course, they are white).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

As I said, I would have dissented.

However, "probable cause" for seizure was already there - that's why he was arrested. Then there was the administrative search.

.

I didn't read an exception in the amendment for "administrative" purposes.

Not paying a fine (which he had paid anyway) is NOT probable cause for believing he had contraband in his body cavities.

There's not an exception in the Second Amendment, either, yet you have no problem with *those* restrictions.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As I said, I would have dissented.

However, "probable cause" for seizure was already there - that's why he was arrested. Then there was the administrative search.

.

I didn't read an exception in the amendment for "administrative" purposes.

Not paying a fine (which he had paid anyway) is NOT probable cause for believing he had contraband in his body cavities.

There's not an exception in the Second Amendment, either, yet you have no problem with *those* restrictions.

There are exceptions to the 1st too. The DIFFERENCE is that they aren't for administrative convenience. As we see in Oakland just today, there's good reason for the exceptions in the 2nd.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,144]

Quote

There's not an exception in the Second Amendment, either, yet you have no problem with *those* restrictions.

You are fine with restrictions on the 2nd amendment as well. You have just convinced yourself that the founding fathers agree with you.

[lawrocket 3]

I habent had to worry about this since law school, but "booking searches" have been a part of jurisprudence for a while. Here in Cali one of the reasons for a search is to prevent brinving of contraband into jail.

Not in the Constitution, but something along the lines of interpretation of the word "unreasonable." Not that I agree with thatr as being "reasonable" but I see where the line is drawn and I understand it. I disagree with those lines but I understand them. I'm about making it as difficult as possible for DA's and cops to get into my business.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

As I said, I would have dissented.

However, "probable cause" for seizure was already there - that's why he was arrested. Then there was the administrative search.

.

I didn't read an exception in the amendment for "administrative" purposes.

Not paying a fine (which he had paid anyway) is NOT probable cause for believing he had contraband in his body cavities.

There's not an exception in the Second Amendment, either, yet you have no problem with *those* restrictions.

There are exceptions to the 1st too. The DIFFERENCE is that they aren't for administrative convenience.

"Administrative search" != "administrative convenience". Maybe you can explain how YOUR idea of psych evals for purchasing a gun isn't the same sort of intrusion on the 4th as you claim this to be.

Quote

As we see in Oakland just today, there's good reason for the exceptions in the 2nd.

So that those intent on murder will have a ready supply of unarmed victims?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The reason to prohibit unreasonable search and seizure is the tendency of the government to wield their power capriciously and without restraint.

Nothing illustrates that more than this case, in which the guy had ALREADY paid the fine and yet was detained, arrested, strip searched, and then held in jail for six days. That's horrible.

personally, the falsely arrested and jailed for multiple days leaps out as the bigger offence to liberty here.

I also don't see how you can treat prisoners differently based on whether or not they may be guilty of a significant crime. All prisoners get the same process.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There are exceptions to the 1st too. The DIFFERENCE is that they aren't for administrative convenience. As we see in Oakland just today, there's good reason for the exceptions in the 2nd.

Didn't you just write something about the problems with making conclusions based on little confirmed data? Even though you went ahead and did it in the same thread you wrote this tripe?

"The amount of hard evidence available is miniscule. Most of what we have is a lot of conflicting "he said she said" stuff. Yet a bunch of people here have chosen a side and staunchly defend it. "

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

The reason to prohibit unreasonable search and seizure is the tendency of the government to wield their power capriciously and without restraint.

Nothing illustrates that more than this case, in which the guy had ALREADY paid the fine and yet was detained, arrested, strip searched, and then held in jail for six days. That's horrible.

personally, the falsely arrested and jailed for multiple days leaps out as the bigger offence to liberty here.

I also don't see how you can treat prisoners differently based on whether or not they may be guilty of a significant crime. All prisoners get the same process.

The guy in question, however, has not been found guilty of ANY crime. Nor, apparently, was there any probable cause to believe he possessed contraband. It was just "administrative convenience".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you should provide a link to a story so everyone knows what you're talking about.
Or are you intentionally trying to hide the nature of these strip searches?

Netiquette aside, doing THIS took me about 10 seconds. So did THIS.

Sure, it was easy enough to find the news stories. But the netiquette point is that it would be easier for everyone if he posted a link to one of those stories in his starter message, rather than make everyone who is curious to go poke around and find it independently on their own. One link by him, could save doezens of people the time it takes them to go fish for it themselves. It's just the polite thing to do.

[Andy9o8 0]

plus, I think of the children.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

personally, the falsely arrested and jailed for multiple days leaps out as the bigger offence to liberty here.

I also don't see how you can treat prisoners differently based on whether or not they may be guilty of a significant crime. All prisoners get the same process.

The guy in question, however, has not been found guilty of ANY crime. Nor, apparently, was there any probable cause to believe he possessed contraband. It was just "administrative convenience".

again, that (not having been convicted yet) is irrelevant. If you believe prisoners may smuggle in objects that present a risk in the prison, you search for it. If you believe this is wrong for this guy, then its wrong for all prisoners, and again his false arrest/imprisonment is an unimportant detail.

Trying to combine the two issues seems like a shameless attempt to curry favor for the issue due to his innocence rather than via the meaning and protection of the 4th amendment.