It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High court rules against man strip searched for traffic violation

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Since Florence was the vehicle's registered owner, the officer ran his identification and discovered a bench warrant for an outstanding fine. He had already paid the fine and carried a letter attesting to that fact, since he claimed he had been stopped on several previous occasions. Nevertheless, the 35-year-old Bordentown resident was handcuffed and arrested, then taken to the jail in Burlington County, in the central part of the state.

Court records show Florence was subjected to an invasive strip and visual body-cavity search. He was then held for six days in the county lockup before being transferred to a Newark correctional facility, where, he claims, he was subjected to another more intrusive search before being placed in the general prison population.



And he was kept in jail overnight when the magistrate said yea, his fine was paid.

This is just such a grievous act against the fourth amendment that words fail me.

This supreme court is something else. If you are a corporation, you have rights. If your a citizen, you don't.

In the 80s and 90s, there were a series of lawsuits against municipalities for doing intrusive strip searches over parking tickets, and they ruled in favor of the citizens, since there was no reasonable cause for the searches.

An unpaid ticket is not a reasonable cause for a strip search.

The previous cases stated that no enough evidence was ever found in these strip searches, to justify them.

cnn




edit on 2-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Wow...it almost sounds more like he was trying to get on a commercial airline flight than just driving down the highway.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


It sounds as though he had a dumbass lawyer....if he had the proof that the fine was paid, and still a bench warrant was issued, then that is false arrest and false imprisonment, is it not? I am sure the police have a way to find out if a fine has been paid beyond what the bench warrant says. This is not right, he needs a lawyer who will sue for the right things, not just the strip search.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 





It sounds as though he had a dumbass lawyer....if he had the proof that the fine was paid, and still a bench warrant was issued, then that is false arrest and false imprisonment, is it not? I am sure the police have a way to find out if a fine has been paid beyond what the bench warrant says. This is not right, he needs a lawyer who will sue for the right things, not just the strip search.


If there was a warrant issued, valid or not, the officer did his job. Had the officer not made an arrest for a warrant the officer would be in contempt of court and a judge could fine/imprison the officer for not doing his duty.

It is not the officers job to find out if a fine has been paid. It is the courts job to make sure that if a fine has been paid that all paperwork reflects this.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
If he paid the fine the warrant should not of been out there in the first place.

But no one should be subjected to a full strip search for a fine, I don't even see how the courts can justify this.

There has to be reasonable suspicioun, and a man in the car with his wife and two children, who wasn't even driving, has not given any reason to search him.
Basically what the courts are saying that simply being in teh building is reason enough.

And what can you do about it? That is the highest court.
edit on 2-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Court records show Florence was subjected to an invasive strip and visual body-cavity search. He was then held for six days in the county lockup before being transferred to a Newark correctional facility, where, he claims, he was subjected to another more intrusive search before being placed in the general prison population.


from CNN.

Seriously? six days and a two search over a fine.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

In his dissent in the case, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945, Justice Breyer wrote that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to prohibit strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that the people to be searched were carrying contraband.


NY Times

AT least one Justics upholds the Fourth Amendment.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


So in the states you can get fingered for having an unpaid ticket
This is not justice




Court records show Florence was subjected to an invasive strip and visual body-cavity search. He was then held for six days in the county lockup before being transferred to a Newark correctional facility, where, he claims, he was subjected to another more intrusive search before being placed in the general prison population.


Invasive strip and visual body cavity search what were they looking for
Donuts

Cran



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
yet another decision by this court for our own safety, talk about activist judges??? Read the details of this case and the dissenting opinions,



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by cranspace
 


Basically.

Under the guise of safety, and they used this example:


"Hours after the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh was stopped by a state trooper who noticed he was driving without a license plate."

And how many Timothy McVeighs have there been??

business insider



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Caught speeding? well cleavage and tears aren't enough any more. Just bend over for the anal probe. If the officer doesn't have an attached phallus she might choose to use a stick. If you complain then you get the ticket too.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I hope the man finds some kind of recourse.


edit on 3-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Out of sheer curiosity OP -- did you read the Opinion of the Court or just regurgitate the story via CNN? Here it is if you want to gain a better and clearer perspective of what was actually ruled upon -- hint: the Supreme Court didn't rule that correctional officers have Carte Blanche when it comes to "strip-searches".

FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL.

Since Florence's case was based upon their "strip-search", which did not involve touching or removal of clothes, the court would have been outside of the scope of the case to even opine upon it.

Kennedy explains,

There also may be legitimate concerns about the invasiveness of searches that involve the touching
of detainees. These issues are not implicated on the facts of this case, however, and it is unnecessary to con- sider them here.


But of a truly positive note, Chief Justice Roberts makes a very important statement when he wrote, (emphasis added).

I join the opinion of the Court. As with JUSTICE ALITO, however, it is important for me that the Court does not foreclose the possibility of an exception to the rule it announces.


The cream of the opinion is in the following, delivered by Justice Alito and undoubably and convienently left out of most news reports -- my guess, to drum up a good story how the Justices say its okay for officers to strip us down naked and poke and prod. To bad that isn't true huh?


The Court holds that jail administrators may require all arrestees who are committed to the general population of a jail to undergo visual strip searches not involving physical contact by corrections officers.


Oh well, I guess actually investigating a story falls upon the prudent and just regurgitating stories falls to the ignorant.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Out of sheer curiosity OP -- did you read the Opinion of the Court or just regurgitate the story via CNN? Here it is if you want to gain a better and clearer perspective ...
Oh well, I guess actually investigating a story falls upon the prudent and just regurgitating stories falls to the ignorant.


OMG you seem to have missed the undercurrent. Ever drive too fast? Look at a cop the wrong way?

Well then off to jail, and since you're under arrest you're getting anally raped even if they can't get another inmate to do it on the basis of your race. Oh and they're gonna take a DNA sample, tooth-imprints, iris scan and fignerprints too. Then "run you" against every crime that ever happened. Even if you werent born yet when someone bit someone ... your teeth match. More slavery for you. Now make those parts for $0.1 / hour or you'll never get out due to your "bad behavior".



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by reitze
OMG you seem to have missed the undercurrent. Ever drive too fast? Look at a cop the wrong way?


I wasn't commenting on the 'undercurrent'; rather I was speaking to what the Justices actually ruled upon. The Supreme Court was presented with a case in which the petitioner sought reprieve from the actions of the correctional officers and others that were administering the jail -- which most likely were acting in good faith upon established policy -- whereas his real issue should be with the city. The municipality failed to clear any warrant once it was taken care of.

The Court recognized that carving out an exception would be impossible. The petitioner was basically asking the Court to tie the hands and force intake officers to not use sound judgement and exclude non serious offenders (in which the assumption in this case was based upon false information; more on this later) from being searched as they are introduced into the jail.


Petitioner’s proposal―that new detainees not arrested for serious crimes or for offenses involving weapons or drugs be exempt from invasive searches unless they give officers a particular reason to suspect them of hiding contraband


This is what the Court ruled upon. The above would be impossible if it were ruled otherwise.

This is absent my feelings about Florence's true greivence, in which he was subjected to the search based on false information and a failure of the municipality that failed to correct his record showing his warrant was taken care of. If he would have gone after that, I would bet he would have had a much better case in this situation.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join