Sepharo wrote on Apr 4, 2012, 23:34:
Your post is the embodiment of sensationalism.

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

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.

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}

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.

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?!

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.

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.

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.

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?!

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