
Justices Approve Strip-Searches for Any Offense - switz
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
======
jerrya
I was driving my car two weeks ago, when I was pulled over for failure to pay
a ticket (the officer and their db was in error.) That night before heading
out on the road, I shoved some rock cocaine in a balloon up my ass, so I was
okay with going to jail because I could make some money. I was thrown into the
hoosegow, (I'd asked for the clink) but not until I was strip searched.

Last week, the cops came by for failure to pay child support (I had paid, in
fact it's automatically deducted but my ex was playing games again.) As I saw
the black and white pull up to the curb, I quickly shoved some spoons up my
ass, damn, cops found those during the strip search.

Last night, my dog and I were playing in the park when I saw some cops wander
by, yep, I got nabbed for walking the dog off the leash. Luckily before going
out with the dog I had shoved a cell phone up my ass, but damn, the cops found
that too.

 _Some potential examples cited by dissenting judges in the lower courts and
by Justice Breyer on Monday included violating a leash law, driving without a
license and failing to pay child support._

~~~
sukuriant
I don't really know where you're going with this..

~~~
jerrya
It's a response to arguments that the government has a legitimate need to
strip search everyone, regardless of what the charges are against them.

The notion some guy pulled over for failure to pay a speeding ticket, or
arrested for failure to pay child support, or arrested for having a dog off
leash (really?) has paraphernalia shoved up his ass should seem terribly
questionable. The argument the government has a need to strip search everyone,
should give way to a realization that probably is not true.

As I point out, these are not my wild examples, but examples specifically
mentioned by Justice Breyer in dissent.

------
DanielBMarkham
IANAL, I'm a libertarian and against all forms of ad-hoc searches, but I think
the government has a point here. As I understand this the goal is to control
contraband and weapons entering the prison system. I don't see any way you
could get around having to to search all those entering.

But that's a different situation than being searched for a crime. If I
understood this correctly, this is simply an administrative search, not a
search in search of evidence. Or put another way, if you get arrested for a
joint and during the search the cops find cocaine, I'm not sure that would
mean much of anything. (except you lose your cocaine)

But I'm probably completely off-base.

~~~
cheez
Sure, let's see what happens when you get strip searched for mundane things
like being too noisy.

~~~
kijeda
Isn't the issue, then, that you shouldn't be put in jail for such offences,
rather than making arguments concerning strip searching?

~~~
cheez
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it"

This applies especially and probably mostly to the police and government.

Police indirectly get more money for more arrests. Therefore, arrest more
people.

You should be glad when you get a driving ticket. It's a proxy for an arrest
or two that could have happened instead.

------
endianswap
Idealistically this is something that I would support, because anyone who has
been arrested and will be put into the general population of a jail carries
several risks with them inside (the article mentions some of these: weapons,
drugs, other contraband). But, that entire thought is predicated on a thought
that I would argue is counter to reality: that people are only arrested when
there is good cause to detain that individual.

Basically, if the entirety of the law enforcement and judicial system worked,
then I wouldn't have a problem with this, but if I have to fear being arrested
for taking a photograph of a police officer, then I feel that the strip-
searching would apply to those who shouldn't necessarily be in jail in the
first place...

------
tomp
The title is misleading; IANAL, but according to the article text, the Supreme
Court approved that officials can search people _before putting them into
prison_ , only for offences that _can put you into prison_! I'm quite
astonished that this wasn't the case already, i.e. they take your freedom, but
they don't check what you're carrying with you?!?

~~~
mikecane
It applies to general population of a jail too.

Let's say you are arrested in NYC. You can be taken to a holding cell at a
local precinct. Then you are shuttled to downtown, to a holding cell in the
court building. You go from being one person in a precinct cell to going into
the "general population" of other people waiting to see a judge. Before being
put in that larger holding cell, you will be subjected to a strip search now
thanks to the Supreme Court. And if your offense is something as minor as not
cleaning up your dog's poop? Is that fair?

~~~
tomp
I think the real question is why do you get jailed for not cleaning your dog's
poop. That would never happen in Europe (I hope).

------
darklajid
If I may play the devil's advocate here:

Can you be against this decision if you're not against the 'nude scanner'
thing the TSA uses to inspect you closely, while virtually undressed?

And turned around, if the TSA can do it and no public outcry stops them, is
this decision surprising? It seems this is just the slope letting gravity do
most of the work here..?

------
mikecane
I wonder if in NYC all the people arrested from now on at Occupy Wall Street
will be strip searched. I do not like this decision.

------
anigbrowl
_[In his concurrence] Chief Justice Roberts, quoting from an earlier decision,
said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we
‘not embarrass the future.’”_

It's a bit late for that. The facts of this case speak for themselves:

 _Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper
who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for
petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine.
He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later
in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was
determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like
every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked
for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner
claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms,
turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other
arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for
body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose,
mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a
mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was
also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He
filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the
government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that persons arrested for
minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison
officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other
contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-
searching” on indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the
Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed._

I have visited jails, as part of a film crew. they are grim places, and a lot
of the people who inhabit them are, frankly, villains. I've also seen
collections of confiscated weapons manufactured from scrap materials whose
creativity and effectiveness would put most hackers to shame. I can see the
pragmatic reasoning that led the court to err on the side of law enforcement
officer safety, and indeed inmate safety.

To my mind, the problem is that the nature of Florence's treatment amounted to
cruel and unusual punishment for a minor administrative violation. But legally
speaking it wasn't cruel because it had a practical rather than a punitive
basis; and it wasn't unusual because everyone is subjected to the same degree
of inspection at those facilities; and he hadn't been punished, because he
hadn't been convicted; and it wasn't relevant because his counsel (correctly)
focused on on other constitutional protections. And this is the problem: our
constitutional rights are embedded in a procedural framework so inflexible
that innocent persons can be mistakenly subjected to the most degrading
treatment, and find themselves without a legal remedy because of the legal
equivalent of incorrectly scoped variable (not been convicted, therefore he
hasn't been punished). this ruling is civil rights disaster, and the problem
will get worse before it gets better.

Regular HNers will know that I'm usually on the side of precedent even in
cases where I don't like the decision. I am still not sure what Mr Florence's
attorney could or should have done differently, and it would hardly have been
appropriate to argue that all detainess should be held in solitary confinement
pending the disposition of their case, for example - some cases need time to
resolve, and jails exist in the first place because society has an interest in
detaining some kinds of possible criminals in advance of trial. I haven't read
the full opinion or the briefs, nor have I read enough criminal procedure or
constitutional law to come up with a good alternative; so I'm speaking from my
gut instead of my head, which I don't like to do. But it seems to me that this
exposes a weakness in our constitution's tendency to define procedures rather
than interests. The reasoning is sound, but the outcome is unconscionable in a
free society. I am deeply disappointed.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Like I said, I'm a libertarian. One of the reasons why is that we live in a
society where there are so many laws that the police can and do arrest people
for whatever they feel like. It's been this way probably forever, but recently
it has gotten much, much worse.

Having said that, the question in front of the court begins with the man
arriving at jail, not with the arrest. Perhaps there's another case that could
be made about using arrests in a harassing manner, but I doubt it.

So the justices have to ask themselves a question: which is more important,
keeping the system consistent or having compassion for this poor guy?

I'm an analytical person. My money is on keeping the system consistent, even
if it's broken and this case is a bad example of what we aspire to be.

The system is screwed up enough as it is without SCOTUS running off and
chasing every sob story that comes their way. If the courts start leading with
their hearts, then the entire criminal justice system becomes a matter of who
can make the best emotional case instead of what the law is. The chaos and
harm just moves up to another level of dysfunction. A mostly self-consistent
bad system is still better than a mostly inconsistent bad system.

I'm saddened the guy got treated like this. I wish there was some recourse.
But in my unlearned, guesswork opinion the outcome is the only one the court
had available, no matter how much you and I are disappointed with the larger
state of society.

~~~
anigbrowl
I think you've made an error here. Florence's arrest was reasonable as far as
it went. He had pled guilty 2 years earlier to obstruction of justice and use
of a deadly weapon, and been fined, the fine being payable in installments.
One of his payments was late, and an arrest warrant was issued. He made the
payment soon afterwards, but the warrant was never cancelled. So the arresting
officer checked his identity, found priors involving deadly weapons and an
outstanding arrest warrant, and enforced the warrant.

My issues with this are that a) someone gets thrown into general population
while an administrative issue is being resolved, and b) the nature of his
apparent offense (unpaid fine, rather than an act of commission).

~~~
mikecane
>>>But legally speaking it wasn't cruel because it had a practical rather than
a punitive basis; and it wasn't unusual because everyone is subjected to the
same degree of inspection at those facilities; and he hadn't been punished,
because he hadn't been convicted; and it wasn't relevant because his counsel
(correctly) focused on on other constitutional protections.

Wow. So a cop who brings you in because he had a bad day or doesn't like your
skin tone and has you subjected to a strip search _isn't_ punishment? Nor is
it cruel? And because everyone is equally degraded, it isn't unusual? Look,
you can spout whatever "The law says..." all you want, but this is not what I
want my country to become.

~~~
anigbrowl
If you try following my train of thought, which is only a few paragraphs long,
you'll see that I'm saying the law is deeply flawed.

~~~
mikecane
Yes, I see that. But that middle part irked me too much.

~~~
anigbrowl
Well, there's a difference between a positive (descriptive) statement of how
things _are_ , and a normative statement of how they _should be_. It's hard to
have a constructive discussion of the latter when every statement of the
former results in a derailment of the conversation.

~~~
mikecane
Well, you're taking it personally rather than my being cranky about the
wording that clearly described their point of view.

~~~
anigbrowl
When you wrote _Look,_ you _can spout whatever "The law says..." all_ you
_want [...]_ then I assumed that your remarks were addressed to me, not to
someone else. This exchange is becoming increasingly pointless.

------
medusa666
I'm confident that the vast majority of those who agree with this decision are
white, and therefore believe (probably correctly) that it will never happen to
them.

But if you're a darker-hued, equally law-abiding citizen ...

