Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

17. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 5, 2012, 11:10 Beamer
 
Sepharo wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 23:34:
Your post is the embodiment of sensationalism.

And being naive.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 5, 2012, 11:03 Sixtoes
 
Bard wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 23:08:
Sorry, but you're naive to the realities of the user of such laws.

{more conspiracy rhetoric}

It's not 'criminals' we're talking about here - but Nuns - A NUN for Christ's sake, for nothing more than being present at a protest.

{blah, blah, blah}

Protesters are being maimed, poisoned, injured, humiliated, arrested and tortured to 'shut them up' - and to force the gutless to stay home where it's 'safe' rather than hold the assholes who are REALLY behind the war on terror and mass looting of the American people accountable.

Cheers


Actually, I'm far from naive - but I wouldn't expect a conspiracy theorist like you to believe that.

It's clear from your response that you simply do not grasp the clear limitations to strip searches that SCOTUS' decision put in place. We may not be talking about convicted criminals here, but we are talking about people being placed into the general population of a jail - for whatever reason. We owe it to those already being held to ensure their safety - so we allow for a visual-only search to make sure that no weapons or contraband are brought into into jail.

You can go on and on about nuns being arrested at protests all you'd like - but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court decision that was being discussed.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with "shutting people up" - the Court's decision in the Florence case was all about balancing two very specific interests: the state's interest in ensuring the safety of current inmates versus the incoming inmate's privacy interest. The 4th Amendment does not prevent all searches - it simply prohibits unreasonable searches, and making sure someone doesn't bring a shiv into a jail seems pretty reasonable to me.

Get back to me when you've actually read the decision in this case and can discuss it rationally.
 
- - Giving money and power to government is like giving car keys and whiskey to teenage boys. - -
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 5, 2012, 08:23 OldTimber
 
Aww come on now, dontcha know it's far easier to be a keyboard commando for either side than to put your actual body into harms way for something? It's far better to sit and whine on some social media format than to get off your ass to do something. Seriously don't you know they tremble at the meer thought of a group putting up some petition or spamming a hashtag than to come face to face with a actual group of people determined for a cause? hashtagging is the new gold star on the attendance board for this group to boost their self-esteem groupthink/functioning.

Bard wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 23:01:
Prez wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 18:22:
Personally I have no problem with this. Not sure why it's being presented in such a way that I'm required to be outraged, because I'm not. More media sensationalism.

You don't seem to understand that we're supposed to be FREE PEOPLE. The government is supposed to be OUR servant, not our masters, to dictate we can be stripsearched as they see fit, yet somewhere along the line they HAVE become our masters.

I'm assuming you're young, because otherwise you'd understand what has been taken from us.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 5, 2012, 07:08 TurdFergasun
 
yep but so was the intended effect of the title for this article.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 23:34 Sepharo
 
Your post is the embodiment of sensationalism.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 23:08 Bard
 
Sixtoes wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 19:20:
I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian, but people are seriously over-reacting here. I've read the decision (Florence v. {insert extremely long name here}), and can tell you that three very clear conditions apply.

First: strip searches can only be performed on someone who is being placed in jail - not merely arrested or detained. So the suggestion that violating a leash law would result in a strip search is utterly absurd and patently false - I know of no jurisdiction that would allow jail time for a leash law violation, do you?

Second: the opinion makes it clear that jail officials are allowed to conduct the strip search only if the prisoner is being placed among other prisoners in the facility. Two justices in the 5-4 majority wrote separately in order to stress this specific point. This is a safety issue for other prisoners - if it were merely about the safety of the facility or the guards, this wouldn't have been at issue in the court's written opinions.

Third: the authority to conduct a strip search was limited to visual only, without any touching whatsoever. It can be performed at the same time the inmate showers and de-louses before being put into general population.

The fact of the matter is that this is simply an example of a balancing act between protecting the security of other prisoners, while also protecting the liberty rights of the accused. A visual-only search is a reasonable part of the intake process.

Finally, it should be noted that if a particular state wants to limit these searches further, they may - this is simply the 'outer limits' of what the 4th amendment allows in this case. It's not SCOTUS' job to legislate - merely to ensure that legislation complies with the Constitution.

{end legal rant}

Sorry, but you're naive to the realities of the user of such laws.

Laws are sold to us in the most pleasant light, but applied in the darkest ways possible, to suppress those who dare to speak up.

It's not 'criminals' we're talking about here - but Nuns - A NUN for Christ's sake, for nothing more than being present at a protest.

This is about making the lives of those people with the brain to see what the hell is going on, and the guts to go out and do something about it, as difficult as possible.

Protesters are being maimed, poisoned, injured, humiliated, arrested and tortured to 'shut them up' - and to force the gutless to stay home where it's 'safe' rather than hold the assholes who are REALLY behind the war on terror and mass looting of the American people accountable.

Cheers

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 23:01 Bard
 
Prez wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 18:22:
Personally I have no problem with this. Not sure why it's being presented in such a way that I'm required to be outraged, because I'm not. More media sensationalism.

You don't seem to understand that we're supposed to be FREE PEOPLE. The government is supposed to be OUR servant, not our masters, to dictate we can be stripsearched as they see fit, yet somewhere along the line they HAVE become our masters.

I'm assuming you're young, because otherwise you'd understand what has been taken from us.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 21:02 Sepharo
 
Glad to see so many here are still able to think critically.

Beyond the usual social network rabble, I was disappointed to see some friends and "smart" folks joining in the outrage without actually trying to comprehend the ruling.

I'm hardly a fan of giving police more power but I actually would've thought a visual strip search before being admitted to general population would've already been standard. The "for any offense" part doesn't really matter... it should read "Justices Approve Strip-Searches for Anyone Entering General Population in Prison/Jail"
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 19:20 Sixtoes
 
I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian, but people are seriously over-reacting here. I've read the decision (Florence v. {insert extremely long name here}), and can tell you that three very clear conditions apply.

First: strip searches can only be performed on someone who is being placed in jail - not merely arrested or detained. So the suggestion that violating a leash law would result in a strip search is utterly absurd and patently false - I know of no jurisdiction that would allow jail time for a leash law violation, do you?

Second: the opinion makes it clear that jail officials are allowed to conduct the strip search only if the prisoner is being placed among other prisoners in the facility. Two justices in the 5-4 majority wrote separately in order to stress this specific point. This is a safety issue for other prisoners - if it were merely about the safety of the facility or the guards, this wouldn't have been at issue in the court's written opinions.

Third: the authority to conduct a strip search was limited to visual only, without any touching whatsoever. It can be performed at the same time the inmate showers and de-louses before being put into general population.

The fact of the matter is that this is simply an example of a balancing act between protecting the security of other prisoners, while also protecting the liberty rights of the accused. A visual-only search is a reasonable part of the intake process.

Finally, it should be noted that if a particular state wants to limit these searches further, they may - this is simply the 'outer limits' of what the 4th amendment allows in this case. It's not SCOTUS' job to legislate - merely to ensure that legislation complies with the Constitution.

{end legal rant}
 
- - Giving money and power to government is like giving car keys and whiskey to teenage boys. - -
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 18:22 Prez
 
Personally I have no problem with this. Not sure why it's being presented in such a way that I'm required to be outraged, because I'm not. More media sensationalism.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 16:16 avianflu
 
It does sound like a violation of the 4th and I am not typically interested in politics.

You have to admit, the justification offered by the SC was particularly lame.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 15:30 space captain
 
yeh the media is blowing this out of proportion, conveniently framing it as if the strip search happens at the moment of arrest rather than during imprisonment... which is wrong

it sounds fucking stupid because it was written that way
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 15:23 DangerDog
 
zirik wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 13:56:
sweet... now every cop can strip search hot women who get pulled over for minor offense. they might be holding explosive tampons ya know.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

WTF?!

I wonder if they would strip search a muslim woman if she were arrested wearing a burka.
 
Avatar 6174
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 14:28 Beamer
 
zirik wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 14:23:
Beamer wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 14:05:
zirik wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 13:56:
sweet... now every cop can strip search hot women who get pulled over for minor offense. they might be holding explosive tampons ya know.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

WTF?!

Except that they need to be arrested and imprisoned (not merely stopped nor merely arrested), and that strip searches are done by same-sex officers.

I mean, your concept is right, but your example is not.

from the article...

According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.

Yes. They still need to be taken down to the station, booked, and put into jail (sorry, meant jail before, not prison.)

So there is more to each of these stories, though in most of them it's likely that there was a warrant out for their arrest for not paying a fine, they're eventually taken in for it, there's no judge to issue bail (or some kind of stupid lazy fuck-up and it isn't brought to the judge) and they're put into general holding.

It isn't "hey, that dog has no leash, get naked!" it's "we're putting you into jail and need to make sure you don't have drugs or a shiv or whatever."

Again, not saying it's right, just saying it requires an arrest and placement into jail. There have been very flimsy reasons for the latter.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 14:23 zirik
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 14:05:
zirik wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 13:56:
sweet... now every cop can strip search hot women who get pulled over for minor offense. they might be holding explosive tampons ya know.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

WTF?!

Except that they need to be arrested and imprisoned (not merely stopped nor merely arrested), and that strip searches are done by same-sex officers.

I mean, your concept is right, but your example is not.

from the article...

According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 14:05 Beamer
 
zirik wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 13:56:
sweet... now every cop can strip search hot women who get pulled over for minor offense. they might be holding explosive tampons ya know.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

WTF?!

Except that they need to be arrested and imprisoned (not merely stopped nor merely arrested), and that strip searches are done by same-sex officers.

I mean, your concept is right, but your example is not.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 4, 2012, 13:56 zirik
 
sweet... now every cop can strip search hot women who get pulled over for minor offense. they might be holding explosive tampons ya know.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.

WTF?!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo