×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Supreme Court Approves Strip Searches For Any Arrestable Offense

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide dept.

United States 747

sl4shd0rk writes "Taking a page out of the TSA handbook, the Supreme Court has voted to allow strip searches for any offense, no matter how minimal. The article cites these two tidbits from Justice Anthony Kennedy: 'Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,' and 'Maintaining safety and order at detention centers requires the expertise of correctional officials.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

747 comments

Canada Here I Come (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559043)

We have gone insane in the United States. Our constitution is consistantly being ignored, and our freedoms are dwindling. This is just one more example.

Re:Canada Here I Come (3, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#39559117)

What makes you think Canada is any better? They don't even have free speech.

Re:Canada Here I Come (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#39559205)

It's a sad thing when countries that don't have laws written down heed them more than countries that have them in writing...

Re:Canada Here I Come (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#39559255)

The irony there is our watered down free speech laws (freedom of expression) are probably going to provide more freedom than will realistically be available in the US (despite your 1'st amendment) fairly soon.

Just to offer my commentary on US vs Canada law. The US is all about absolutes. You (supposedly) have a set of absolute, undeniable rights. In Canada, it's about balance and compromise. I have a right to express my opinions, but people have a right not to be harassed with hate speech. The theoretical implications of the Canadian approach seem worse than the US approach, however I think in the practical world they work out much better.

Further, I think the differences make sense when you look at our countries history. Down in the US, you folks had a huge war to get your independence .. lots of inspiring speeches and acts of heroism and such. You _won_ your absolute independence and are adamant about protecting it.

Here in Canada, we hashed out our independence in a series of meetings with the British. It was a compromise solution invloving a gradual transition where we would get a constitution and all the things that really matter for the day to day running of a country, and the British would still maintain a largely symbolic involvement in our politics.

An American would of course freak out at this. Total independence or death and such but it works for us.

Re:Canada Here I Come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559405)

If you're serious try the European Union, and not just the UK. The language barrier is getting smaller by the day. Most large companies have English as their corporate language and most services are also offered in English, including health, tax and education. We've got lots of engineers from countries like China and India, a bunch of yanks would be a welcome addition.

Re:Canada Here I Come (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | about 2 years ago | (#39559503)

The theoretical implications of the Canadian approach seem worse than the US approach, however I think in the practical world they work out much better.

Right up until you piss off the $cientologists, or the Mormons, or the Muslims, by saying something about their "prophet" that they interpret as derogatory (which you may well have intended as same) and they start to sue and harass you in court for "hate speech."

Meanwhile, the idea of being strip-searched before being put into prison seems to be an unfortunate side effect of the way we run prisons. If you haven't heard, smuggling items into prisons is pretty fucking big business. [statesman.com] And they get downright creative [oddee.com] about it. So if you're running a prison, then yes, you turn out to have a vested security interest in strip-searching anyone who comes in, whether they're there doing 10-to-20 or they're in for a short stint on failure to pay traffic tickets.

It sucks, and it's humiliating for those who are strip searched due to minor crimes or worse yet, court system fuck-ups (which is part of what this case had going for it to make a sympathetic plaintiff) but the alternative is the crime and drug gangs just having a few guys whose job it is to get arrested for running enough stoplights to smuggle stuff in to the leaders on a 30-day pass and pass messages back and forth from the outside too.

Re:Canada Here I Come (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | about 2 years ago | (#39559507)

but people have a right not to be harassed with hate speech.

"Harassed"? What do you mean? Someone constantly following you around, calling you, and other such things? If so, I thought that type of thing was illegal even in the US.

If that's not what you meant, then I don't think that people have the right to not be offended.

Re:Canada Here I Come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559303)

What makes you think Canada is any better? They don't even have free speech.

Just because we have free speech zones does not mean that we have free speech.
Even North Korea allows you to say whatever you want as long as you say it where no-one else hears.

Re:Canada Here I Come (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559195)

This is what I don't get. YES, the country SEEMS to be spiraling out of control, but is it really? How much has your life changed in the last ten to fifteen years? Is it better or worse? Mine is better. Much, much better.

Oh, and remember that this is the US, where we pride ourselves on being able to change the system. How about instead of fleeing, you contribute?

Re:Canada Here I Come (5, Insightful)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#39559279)

As you get older, your life does tend to get better, and you don't mind the loss of rights because they don't affect YOU.

So many people here in the US have that "it doesn't affect me" mindset. It sometimes has me wishing it did affect them so we could get some real action on some things.

Re:Canada Here I Come (5, Insightful)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | about 2 years ago | (#39559301)

How much has your life changed in the last ten to fifteen years? Is it better or worse? Mine is better. Much, much better.

TSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, free speech zones...

And you seem to be speaking in a way that indicates that you only care about yourself. Guess what? I care if anyone's freedom is violated, even if my own life is better!

Re:Canada Here I Come (5, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#39559493)

How about instead of fleeing, you contribute?

If you'd rather be 'noble' and stay with the sinking ship, that's your business, but don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us by making it seem that regular Joe Schmoes can do a fucking thing to change shit right now, because that's pretty obviously untrue.

We're getting ready to head into a presidential election where the "left" is actually center and the "right" is actually "holy fucking shit I didn't know the scale went this far". Unless you're one of those sick fucking people that worship the dollar, cheer on the death of the uninsured, and/or pray to God for the death of all the gays, the United States is quickly becoming quite inhospitable. I know people that have been spit on here in Wisconsin...why? Because they're in a fucking union. That's all it takes for someone to hate your guts these days...and God Forbid you signed a recall petition against our current Governor Scott Walker, because the witch hunts are in full fucking effect, up here. To quote one particular comment on an article I read a while back (reporting the fact that the recall signatures were going to be made public in a searchable database, what a great fucking idea that was) "Now all of us employers and landlords will be able to see who the parasites are." We have to fight tooth and nail to find out who is donating to campaigns here in this state, we don't know where half of the legislation that gets voted on in our legislature originates, but dammit, we need to make sure those signatures go public so everyone can find out where we live and harass us over it [dailykos.com] .

How much more money should us 'little people' take out of our dwindling bank accounts to throw at this corrupt two-party system? How many hours volunteering and being involved politically should we tack on to our 80-hour work week? How long do we keep pretending that there's still something salvageable here?

Re:Canada Here I Come (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559519)

Dingdingding, we have a winner!

The world is not, in fact, spiraling down the drain; the media would like to present the image that the world is spiraling down the drain because that meme causes increased media consumption.

Re:Canada Here I Come (0)

Artraze (600366) | about 2 years ago | (#39559233)

I haven't had a chance to RTFA, but I did bother to read the summary:

"'Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison]..."

So this seems to only be about searching people entering the general prison populace. If that's the case, then I'm okay with it (and I'm not usually okay with such things) as it makes sense to limit contraband and all that stuff. So can we limit the knee-jerk driven by a disingenuous headline?

Re:Canada Here I Come (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#39559285)

No, that's not the case at all. Jail is not prison. If you're arrested for any reason, you end up in jail until you get bailed out. It doesn't matter how frivolous the charges are.

Essentially this ruling means that any police officer can take you and have you strip searched for any reason whatsoever (let's say you're arrested for resisting arrest) and you have no recourse. That's the country we live in today.

Re:Canada Here I Come (5, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#39559469)

Did you know that if you are arrested on a Friday, and the judge has already left for the weekend, they can hold you in jail until the judge returns Monday? So, under the new interpretation, you can (and will) be strip searched and placed in population for 2 days, all because you failed to pay a parking ticket, or was walking your dog without a leash, or you crossed the street away from a crosswalk, or your seatbelt wasn't properly fastened, or you just plain pissed a cop off by knowing your rights. Hell, where I live there's a law on the books from the 1800's that says spitting on sidewalks and swearing in front of "ladies" are arrestable offenses.

Still sound reasonable?

Different perspective (3, Funny)

elgeeko.com (2472782) | about 2 years ago | (#39559339)

Here's the real issue. We all see this headline differently and have different responses. You see the issue concerning our liberty while I'm busy trying to figure out how to get more lady cops hired and exactly what kind of crime spree I'm going on. Hey, if they're going to take away our freedoms you might as well enjoy it.

Re:Canada Here I Come (-1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 2 years ago | (#39559429)

It's kind of weird to move to Canada just because the Supreme Court upholds an existing and fairly legitimate practice. They've been strip searching everyone admitted into a prison for a while now for security.

Re:Canada Here I Come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559467)

Yea, I mean just as soon as this ruling came about the police were busting down my door DYING to do a strip search of me. My rights are so far gone.

Re:Canada Here I Come (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#39559479)

Our constitution wasn't ignored. A lot of attention went to it and that part was just rejected. We need to pressure congress to add amendments to really protect (Non-Convicted) prisoners rights, I would add rules that prevent a lot of methods to trick people into breaking the law so they can collect fines. (Such as those No Turn on Red Signs places about 10 feet from where you stop your car. So if you are stopped at a red light you cannot see if there is a sign or not. Because they know people cannot always read every sign that is posted in the road and have it out of site you can give them a ticket for the activity they didn't know was illegal. But the courts will say well you should have read the sign before you got to the light.

This seems terrifying (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559065)

As a non American, can anybody explain to me why this isn't an utterly horrifying ruling? Can a police officer detain and strip search you if they see you jaywalking now?

Re:This seems terrifying (1)

Rurouni_Jaden (846065) | about 2 years ago | (#39559083)

No, I believe this means if you are sent to any jail or prison you can be strip-searched on your way in. You couldn't be strip-searched for a non-prison offense. At least I hope not.

Re:This seems terrifying (0)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#39559183)

Well, not until some police services are tendered out to the lowest private bidder. After all, their minimum wage staff are going to need some perk to compensate for the lack of pay.

Re:This seems terrifying (5, Informative)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | about 2 years ago | (#39559215)

This case was about a man who was suspected of having unpaid fines. He had, in fact, already paid the fines and had the documentation to prove it with him at the time of his arrest.

Re:This seems terrifying (5, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | about 2 years ago | (#39559359)

It's even worse than that.

Not only had he paid the fine, and not only did he show the officer a sealed letter from the state saying he had paid it, but having an unpaid fine is not an arrestable offense (in New Jersey, where this all happened)

Re:This seems terrifying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559417)

You couldn't be strip-searched for a non-prison offense.

This has nothing to do with "offenses" and it's not "for" any such thing. This applies to jails as well as prisons. Just a little recap: jails are where presumed-innocent people go prior to arraignment. There's nothing related to crime here, so it doesn't make sense to speak of there being some threshold of activity that a person performs which could make them subject to this.

Re:This seems terrifying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559119)

I could be wrong, but I don't think jaywalking is an arrest-able offense all on its own.

That's not to say they couldn't come up with something, for just about anyone, if they needed to.

Re:This seems terrifying (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 2 years ago | (#39559291)

I could be wrong, but I don't think jaywalking is an arrest-able offense all on its own.

No, but resisting arrest is apparently.

Re:This seems terrifying (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#39559365)

If jaywalking isn't an arrestable offense, then how can a jaywalker resist arrest?

Re:This seems terrifying (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | about 2 years ago | (#39559153)

Can a police officer detain and strip search you if they see you jaywalking now?

Only if you get arrested and go to jail. The strip search is not due to the arrest. The strip search is about keeping contraband out of the jails.

At least that is the theory. Unfortunately, much like the TSA was put in place to keep weapons off of planes, it is quite a bit of time, money, and effort to plug one small hole in a large, leaky dam.

Re:This seems terrifying (5, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 years ago | (#39559175)

Yes and no.

By itself, Jaywalking isn't an arrestable offense.

But let's say you didn't pay a parking ticket, so a warrant was issued for your arrest. Or let's go further and say you did pay the ticket, but they forgot to cancel the warrant, or let's say that your name is the same as someone else who has a warrant. Then it's get naked!

Or let's say you're protesting the horrible treatment of the 99% and the police decide to single you out to be beaten, pepper sprayed, beaten some more, zip-tied so tight that your hands turn blue and you suffer permanent nerve damage, and then they beat you some more, and then take you to jail and strip you naked.

Re:This seems terrifying (5, Funny)

MiniMike (234881) | about 2 years ago | (#39559197)

You can't be arrested for jaywalking (and thus no strip search), but all attractive people will now also be charged with resisting arrest.

This seems reasonable (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#39559075)

If you allowed anyone to go into prison without careful screening, it would be no time at all before people would be getting themselves arrested for petty offenses simply to act as mules bringing weapons and banned goods into the prison - something that is already an issue but it would explode.

I'm not sure what people have against someone who, remember, has already been convicted of a crime, to have to endure special screening before incarceration. They don't have the right to leave any time they want either, why should they have the right not to submit to visual inspection? The simple fact is that as a criminal you lose some rights you would have otherwise, so it's not like this ruling has general applicability we need to be concerned about.

Re:This seems reasonable (5, Informative)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 2 years ago | (#39559125)

This has nothing to do with being convicted of a crime, this could be somebody brought to jail for speeding. The funny part is the feds and many states already ban this practice the could just said it's allowable. States are still free to ban the practice.

Re:This seems reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559165)

No one goes to jail for speeding...

Re:This seems reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559245)

that's what you think because you're a pussy. try speeding for real (100mph+) and say that to the cops while they drag you to jail.

Re:This seems reasonable (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559393)

You've never been caught for it as either a foreigner or out of stater.

I'm Canadian. The officer gave me an option of paying up front or going to jail and wait for a judge if I wanted to contest the ticket. All because there's no agreement between their state and Ontario so if he let me go I could simply not pay the fine and that's that.

Re:This seems reasonable (5, Insightful)

kbolino (920292) | about 2 years ago | (#39559163)

RTFA:

Again displaying their infinite law-and-order wisdom, the US Supreme Court has ruled that anyone arrested for any offense, however innocuous, can be strip-searched, even if there's no suspicion that they are concealing contraband.

He wasn't convicted.

Florence ... was arrested when his wife was pulled over for speeding (he was a passenger, and his son was in the back seat), and a check of his record showed an unpaid fine for an earlier offense. That record-check was wrong – the fine had been paid – but Florence spent a week in jail anyway, where he underwent the two strip searches.

He didn't commit any crime.

The ABA also notes that Albert Florence, who brought the original suit, was stripped-searched twice, once in private when "the supervising officer inspected Mr. Florence's mouth, tongue, armpits, buttocks, and genitals," and a second time when "he was forced to strip off his clothes in a shower area with a group of four other prisoners, all of whom were required to open their mouths, lift their genitals, and 'squat and cough' in plain sight of one another."

He was publicly humiliated.

Stop apologizing for the complete and total gutting of our rights.

Re:This seems reasonable (1)

rastos1 (601318) | about 2 years ago | (#39559221)

If you allowed anyone to go into prison without careful screening ...

Where does the article talk about prison?

... someone who, remember, has already been convicted of a crime ...

Where does the article talk about 'convicted'? It does however say anyone arrested for any offense, however innocuous, can be strip-searched ... well, I hope I can't be arrested for jaywalking, speeding. (Can I be arrested for civil offense?) If I'm arrested for suspected shoplifting, then I guess it is correct to empty my pockets and search my backpack. But a strip-search? Even if it turns out that I was arrested by mistake? Well, if that's ok by you, it certainly isn't ok by me.

Re:This seems reasonable (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 2 years ago | (#39559395)

Where does the article talk about prison?

It's in both the summary and the article. Try searching for jail or prison.

This ruling is actually upholding existing practice -- if you're admitted in to a jail or prison (as a prisoner), you can be strip searched.

Re:This seems reasonable (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#39559461)

Where does the article talk about prison?

The bit that says:

"Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy

But I guess that would require reading more than one sentence into the article. Then again it's in TFS.

Where does the article talk about 'convicted'?

It doesn't since that as made up by the poster.

Group strip searches are clearly just an excuse to degrade and humiliate people. Strip searching those who are already inmates without some justifiable cause doesn't seem to have any justification other than degrading and humiliating people. But strip searching someone as they join a prison or jail inmate population doesn't seem that strange to me (and yes there will be plenty of innocent people in jail) there's a lot of contraband people want to get in after all.

Re:This seems reasonable (1)

will_die (586523) | about 2 years ago | (#39559511)

It does not say when arrested it specifies that when you are arrested and put into general population, they are allowed to search for the safty of the guards and other inmates.
Being arrested does not allow them to search you right on the street like you are saying.

Re:This seems reasonable (5, Informative)

MimeticLie (1866406) | about 2 years ago | (#39559251)

I'm not sure what people have against someone who, remember, has already been convicted of a crime, to have to endure special screening before incarceration.

Arrest != conviction. The man in question was wrongfully arrested (for a fine that he had already paid). On the radio this morning they were also talking about strip searches for offenses such as riding a bike without an audible bell and walking a dog without a leash.

The worst thing about this ruling is that it provides police with yet another way to silence people who are inconvenient. Protesters, people who record video of police brutality, and anyone else are now at risk of punitive strip searches. The only sliver of hope in this ruling is that it doesn't overturn existing laws that prohibit strip searches in minor cases. We'll just have to see if legislators try to dismantle those in the next wave of "tough on crime" election year bullshit.

Re:This seems reasonable (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#39559499)

america has become a land of SEX PERVERTS.

let me correct that, if you are in a position of 'authority', your next role is to fight to have the right to strip search people and humiliate them.

yes, its about humiliation and not torture. a 'graceful' way to scare people into submission without all the bad aftertaste (so to speak).

tsa fondles and gropes passengers and now we give the sociopaths in blue the ability to scare you into submission by threat of this new tactic.

I guess spraying and volting you was not enough to control the population; we needed MORE tools to subdue the populace?

it sure does seem that this has a bit of the 'occupy' people in mind. lets scare the protesters so much that they'll think twice about showing their dissatisfaction at public gatherings.

piece by piece, we disassemble the laws and cultural norms that made this country GREAT. a once great nation, falling, before our very eyes. this is not hyperbole, either; its not even a slow cook of the frog. we're throwing the frog into boiling water and no one seems to really object but the powerless 'citizens'. and our voice has no representation anymore. the surpremes work for someone else, now, it appears ;(

Re:This seems reasonable (3, Interesting)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about 2 years ago | (#39559453)

Not convicted, arrested. First, the bar is *a lot* lower to arrest someone than to convict them. Innocent people get arrested all the time. This also not only for prison, it's for jail. Jail is "I got drunk and maybe a little stupid so they tossed me in here overnight", jail is "I went to this protest, and the cops decided to take a few of us in", jail is "They don't even have enough to charge me, but they can hold me here for 24 hours". A significant percentage of people who go to jails in a large city never even get *charged* with anything, let alone convicted. I know guys who've spent a night or two in jail here or there who have security clearances. Given the number of years I lived in New Orleans, and the number of mildly stupid things I've done int eh French Quarter after a long nigh, I count myself pretty lucky not to spent a night or two there myself.

I would rather have that than contraband (5, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#39559077)

I generally am pretty pro-civil rights, but if I were going into a jail or prison I would probably rather have someone strip search me than to get shanked later by some psycho who snuck in a knife. And it's also a pretty shitty message to send to guards to say "A minor issue of prisoner privacy is more important to us than your safety."

Maybe you can make the "slippery slope" argument on this, but some sort of strip search on prison admission is hardly a new issue. They've been doing it for decades now.

Re:I would rather have that than contraband (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559141)

And it's also a pretty shitty message to send to guards to say "A minor issue of prisoner privacy is more important to us than your safety."

You care more about prison guards than the regular people who are abused by prison guards. Think about that.

Re:I would rather have that than contraband (3, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#39559249)

I don't think it's fair to compare a moment of slight humiliation at being strip searched to the very real risk of an inmate attacking a guard with a smuggled weapon.

Re:I would rather have that than contraband (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559257)

I guess he forgot that once you're a prison guard, you're no longer a person and are removed from consideration in any question of the interaction of rights and civil procedure.

Re:I would rather have that than contraband (5, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#39559331)

If like me, you are over 50, then every time you see a doctor they want to stick their finger up you're arse. So instead of calling it a "strip search" just give them a paper gown and call it a "health check", jobs done.

Re:I would rather have that than contraband (2)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | about 2 years ago | (#39559371)

And it's also a pretty shitty message to send to guards to say "A minor issue of prisoner privacy is more important to us than your safety."

Funnily enough, that's usually how the anti-terrorist nonsense like the TSA is justified. "We're just keeping you safe, citizen. Privacy is less important than perceived safety!" Not exactly the same, but similar.

They've been doing it for decades now.

Something having been done for decades does not mean it's a good thing.

Re:I would rather have that than contraband (1)

Demiansmark (927787) | about 2 years ago | (#39559385)

I agree with you. It seems that this is probably the only way to limit contraband in the jail population (people don't go to prison for minor offenses).

I was arrested about a decade ago (DUI in my college years), brought into a room with about 10 others that were being processed. We stripped, handed over our clothes and belongings and were given our jail uniforms. It wasn't the most dignified moment of my life, but I'm not sure what the alternative would look like. Allowing us to change clothes in a private room?

I prefer a strip search any time ..... (1)

mseeger (40923) | about 2 years ago | (#39559095)

I prefer a strip search any time if the the other choice is grantÃng them access to my PC. The strip search is less intruding...

In Soviet Russia they USA you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559097)

What goes in USA is no longer funny.

And to think that Americans were laughing at "lack of liberties" in countries under soviet influence...

Slashdot, 18 hrs behind the NY Times (1, Offtopic)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 years ago | (#39559099)

I'm already done being mad about this. Since you're basically being strip searched now when you board a plane, take a train, drive your car, get arrested for smoking a joint, yadda, yadda, I propose we just stop wearing clothes.

I mean the TSA, cops, school principals, ticket wardens, etc. are gonna remove 'em anyway, you might as well just stay naked.

And for all you RTFA dopes who are going to reply to this saying "this is only for people being released into the general prision population, I say 'BULLSHIT'.

There's a story right below this one about cell-phone tracking without a warrant. Don't believe for a second this ruling won't be used to abuse rights by those in power, or those that THINK they have power because they have guns and handcuffs, or they are backed up by some "board".

Hell, potential employers want your facebook password, maybe pretty soon you'll be strip searched before you can go to work.

Time to leave this country. In Florida, it's legal to provoke someone to threaten you and then you shoot them, it's now legal to strip search anyone for any reason, and our government is controlled and run by Goldman Sachs, for Goldman Sachs. Screw this.

Re:Slashdot, 18 hrs behind the NY Times (4, Funny)

rullywowr (1831632) | about 2 years ago | (#39559225)

I'm already done being mad about this. Since you're basically being strip searched now when you board a plane, take a train, drive your car, get arrested for smoking a joint, yadda, yadda, I propose we just stop wearing clothes.

I mean the TSA, cops, school principals, ticket wardens, etc. are gonna remove 'em anyway, you might as well just stay naked.

And for all you RTFA dopes who are going to reply to this saying "this is only for people being released into the general prision population, I say 'BULLSHIT'.

There's a story right below this one about cell-phone tracking without a warrant. Don't believe for a second this ruling won't be used to abuse rights by those in power, or those that THINK they have power because they have guns and handcuffs, or they are backed up by some "board".

Hell, potential employers want your facebook password, maybe pretty soon you'll be strip searched before you can go to work.

Time to leave this country. In Florida, it's legal to provoke someone to threaten you and then you shoot them, it's now legal to strip search anyone for any reason, and our government is controlled and run by Goldman Sachs, for Goldman Sachs. Screw this.

Sounds like you may still be mad about this.

Why is the parent modded offtopic? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#39559455)

The tone for most of it reads as more than just a tad sarcastic, but I can't see how that would make it offtopic. It actually seems pretty square on topic to me (more so than this comment, in fact).

An expected outcome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559129)

Old facist state checklist:

Engaged in conflict across the globe.
Government working for the interest of business.
Propaganda in use. (The 6th edition of the book Propaganda was called Public Relations - so not only in use but considered a career)

And now more Police Survelance state.

Everything old is nude again I guess.

Occupy rule (4, Insightful)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#39559137)

Let's call this the occupy rule, because that's what it is. A way to intimidate people without having the messiness of a trial and stuff. You just have to arrest them, search and hold them for awhile and let them go. Note the language:

'Every detainee ... may be required to undergo a close visual inspection

That means the cops don't have any responsibility to find every weapon, but they can search you if they want to. If you get shived in lockup, that's your own bad luck.

Re:Occupy rule (5, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 years ago | (#39559239)

Right, because beating you, pepper spraying you, zip tieing you so tight your hands turn blue, then beating you some more isn't enough. Now they can give you a full cavity search as well.

All for exercising your first amendments rights.

Way to go America. Land of the .... free?

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559157)

I read Slashdot every day. In the last year I have read that our government now has the approval to run drones over OUR heads and now this. Unfuckingbelievable.
When are we going to wake up? I bet that before I die (hopefully of old age) that I will read that a drone flown by a municipality shot and killed a citizen who escaped custody for not allowing a strip search for a misdemeanor littering offense.
In my 60 years on the planet, I have never seen a worse Supreme Court! In fact these guys have done more harm to our way of life than all of the others combined.
What the hell is going on?

That funny Supreme Court (1)

chair300 (2008358) | about 2 years ago | (#39559241)

Oh those guys at the supreme court are hilarious, what a great April fools joke. Wait, today is April 3... I am sure that they really meant this ruling was to be a handed out on April 1, but justices have been known to be horrible with time. God I hope this is just a late April fools joke.

When you give up freedoms for security (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#39559277)

So this is what happens when you give up freedoms for security.

I'd say it's not an equitable exchange, the security is really perceived but the freedoms that you give up are quite real.

SCOTUS is not doing its job, hasn't been doing its job for over 100 years now, it's not defending the Constitution. Why is it important to defend the Constitution? Because that's the only thing that stands between YOU and government tyranny.

Re:When you give up freedoms for security (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#39559423)

Sadly, a piece of paper is not standing between you and tyranny. The only thing standing between you and tyranny is your ability to keep the potential tyrant scared of you. The potential tyrant has the largest military in the world, a police force of thugs who can beat you and strip search you, and a populace that will not defend you. Like it or not, might makes right.

Anti-Terrorism and The War on Freedom (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 2 years ago | (#39559283)

I first observed these provisions in Anti-Terrorism legislation. I lobbied hard to get the wording changed but the responses were pretty much along the lines of 'We don't like these much either but they are gonna happen, thanks for your input', some tried to soften the blow but we have been on the slippery slop for ten years now.

Our freedom is pretty much an illusion now. What makes it worse are those TV shows where regular violation of rights are conducted and people just accept it and because the mass of sheeple accept it the slide is faster.

Who the enemy of freedom is becoming like a battle for the mind. me me me and now now now has replaced any desire for higher aspirations for society. People with serious concerns are ignored as morbid and the vapid shallow entertaining ones lead us to our demise dancing and smiling. Slavery== new iDevice, shiney, sleek, desirable Freedom==cumbersome, hard to manage and means I have to think.

I don't like thinking, it's too hard

Would you comfort me Big Mother? at home at work when I play. oh, it's uncomfortable at first, but I think I'll get used to it,, till eventually you say "I like being fisted"

You *will* like it.

Women and Children First (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 2 years ago | (#39559293)

I'm sure this will be a cop who's a closet-pedo/stalker dream come true.

While the TSA are under federal supervision, I can't imagine what kind of insane abuse cops out in the sticks (say, in Gidding, TX) will do "to protect and to serve."

Re:Women and Children First (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559411)

Officer Pedobear is applying now for the children's strip search and cavity inspection unit. He intends to strip search and cavity grope an entire elementary school on day 1.

Mountains and molehills? (1)

alaffin (585965) | about 2 years ago | (#39559297)

I'm not seeing the reason for all the umbrage here. Strip searching a prisoner who is being released into the general population of a prison (and not any offence, no matter how minimal, thank you very much submitter sl4shd0rk - but good on you for twisting things so that you could get more of a reaction from the knee-jerks) seems to me to be a valid idea. Protects the guards at the prison. Protects the other inmates. Unlike those of us who aren't in prison, prisoners have no right to privacy (and have never had) so it's not a violation of their rights. Can someone explain to me what the big deal is?

Re:Mountains and molehills? (2)

Ltap (1572175) | about 2 years ago | (#39559337)

This will also apply to arrested and "detained" people, not just convicts. What this means (and how this will be used) is a form of harassment of protestors, especially when their more expensive personal goods "go missing" into a cop's pocket.

Re:Mountains and molehills? (1)

FranktehReaver (2441748) | about 2 years ago | (#39559445)

Exactly, and you are assuming this is all for the good of everyone. Cops are crooked, immoral, douche bag thugs like anyone else and if they detain a cute 19 year old girl for drinking in public well here comes the strip search and groping. Hey he can legally do this it is for the good of everyone right? This is in no way a good thing at all, it will be abused like most other laws and dirty cops will get away with dirty things more often.

Re:Mountains and molehills? (1)

will_die (586523) | about 2 years ago | (#39559413)

The opposing side made the claim that since people arrested on minor charges would not have planned to go to jail there is no reason to search them since they would not of hidden objects.
Frankly that is just stupid, and makes local police resonsible to make up a policy on what is minor and in what cases is it minor instead of doing what they think is needed to ensure that the guards and other inmates are safe(r).

Re:Mountains and molehills? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#39559475)

Not if being arrested and "releasing into the general population" is used as a loophole to get around the 4th amendment.

Someone being assertive and trying to insist on a warrant before being searched can now just be arrested for whatever bullshit the cop can think of, and the search will conveniently happen as part of the booking process.

With this ruling the cops can just use their handcuffs as a shortcut to avoid getting a search warrant.

Re:Mountains and molehills? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559491)

Its a big deal because of the ease of which it can happen.

It's probably easier to understand this if you personalize it. How would you handle being arrested, strip-searched in front of other prisoners, all for something you didn't do. If that doesn't personalize it enough, imagine it happening to you son/daughter/wife/gf/etc.

Remember - in this specific case, the person was NOT convicted, NOT a criminal, and had, apparently, done nothing wrong to cause this. I'm curious how he ended up in a prison population to cause this to come up anyway.

It's an unbelievable ruling, and has completely freed the authorities to use as wanted. I agree with many of the other posters that this will be used as a way to intimidate people from expressing their rights.

USA USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559309)

our daily comic strip...

roadway searches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559349)

Does this mean cops can now carry around portable blinds and have your strip on the side of the road?

Inaccurate summary/title (2, Informative)

bkaul01 (619795) | about 2 years ago | (#39559355)

The Supreme Court did not approve strip searches for "any arrestable offense." It approved them for anyone being put into the general prison population who, at the judgment of officials running said institution, need to be searched for health and safety reasons. Several justices wrote in attached opinions that the ruling does not necessarily apply to people who are arrested but will not be put into the general prison population. It's not "anyone who could be arrested" that may be strip searched: it's "anyone who's going to be put into the jail with other prisoners."

Up to states now to enact laws (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 2 years ago | (#39559357)

Just as several states tightened up eminent domain laws in light of Kelo, so now it is time for the states to tighten up strip-search laws, or perhaps strip search liability or when arrestees are placed "in the general population". Sadly, I have not yet heard of any such call for new laws as there was in the wake of Kelo.

Not part of the punishment. (2)

ClayDowling (629804) | about 2 years ago | (#39559375)

The strip search isn't part of the punishment, folks. The guy running the jail, and the strip search, doesn't give a rat's backside if you've been convicted or not. What he wants to do is make sure you're not bringing contraband into the prison population. It's a security measure for the jail. Otherwise, it becomes a pretty easy method of getting all kinds of unpleasant things into the jail. I don't have to stretch my imagination too far to see how to get weapons in, and smuggling drugs wouldn't be too hard either.

Obama Oxymoron: Unreasonable Search and Seizure (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | about 2 years ago | (#39559379)

Pan from behind the President addressing Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Press.

All standing and cheering

It is a sad day.

And in related news... (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 years ago | (#39559383)

Every outstanding traffic ticket in America has just been paid!

(For those that don't get this joke, RTFA!)

Remember this on election day (3, Informative)

assertation (1255714) | about 2 years ago | (#39559399)

There is no fast way to fix the Supreme court. The "justices" are nominated by the president and confirmed by Congress/Senate. The only way to fix the supreme court is to consistently vote and vote "not Republican". The Republican will never place anyone on the Supreme court who isn't predisposed to supporting Big Business, Big Brother and Big Religion.

I say as a form of protest... (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about 2 years ago | (#39559419)

...we just strip whenever we get pulled over or detained for questioning. Even if it has no effect on the law, it'll be worth it to see the expressions on their face.

4th amendment (2)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#39559441)

This is just a blank check for cops to arrest people and use this ruling as a back door to do an end run around the 4th amendment by letting the jail do the search for them.

Before:

1. Cop gets warrant
2. Search happens
3. Contraband found
4. Cop makes arrest

Now:

1. Cop makes bullshit arrest
2. Prison does a strip search
3. Contraband found
4. Subject gets busted for contraband

So if the cops want to search you, now all they have to do is just slap the cuffs on you and boot you behind bars and let the prison filter out as contraband whatever it is they didn't want to get a warrant for out on the streets.

Penn State's "kids for money" program... (3, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 years ago | (#39559477)

What about Juvenile Detention facilities?

PA had an issue where the detention facility was paying a judge to convict kids because the facility charged the state per kid, so, more kids == more profit.

In NYC alone in 2011, we had 50,000 arrested for smoking a joint, and every one of those arrests is a potential strip search.

There's an abuse of power already in progress, and we just gave them the ability to strip us literally, as well as strip us of our rights. 4th Amendment, anyone?

May all 9 Justices be arrested.... (2)

realsilly (186931) | about 2 years ago | (#39559501)

.... and be subject to a full cavity search. I can seen then how quickly they would reverse that decision.

It's indecent and disgusting. I understand their reasoning, but when it's and all or nothing decision, and not one of common sense, it's simply wrong.

Only applies when locked up in general pop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39559515)

'Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail or prison] population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,'

It doesn't matter what the person did, the rules are the same.

It only applies when somebody is being put into a general prison population. The prisons have to ensure the safety of everybody, the prisoner, the guards and other prisoners. The ruling affirmed that they should all undergo the same procedures as everybody else. Granting exceptions leads to a gray area where prisoners could be caught with contraband and claim the officers had no suspicion and thus no grounds to search them in the first place. Its also for prisoner safety since the inspection procedures are to note any tattoos, markings or health concerns before you put somebody into an enclosed area with other people. The other concern was that guards at a prison may see hundred of prisoners coming through, they won't know who has exceptions and who doesn't.

It still has to be part of an established procedure, people can't do it to target specific people or to get their jollies off. That established procedure could still be challenged in court if it goes too far.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...