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.

 

Supreme Court signs off on strip searches for all arrestees

page: 2
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I also think that the issue here is not whether or not law enforcement has a right to conduct strip searches upon arrest. The real issue is whether or not law enforcement are making valid arrests. If the arrest is not valid then neither is the strip search and the Supreme Courts ruling is moot. An invalid arrest is an unlawful arrest and an unlawful arrest is a crime. A crime that can and should be prosecuted by law. The best and surest way to make sure such a crime is prosecuted is for the victim who was unlawfully arrested to file a verified complaint, swearing under penalty of perjury that their rights had been violated and crimes committed.

Once a verified complaint is filed, a Sheriff cannot lawfully ignore this, nor can the District Attorneys, nor can any judge simply dismiss it. Unless there is compelling evidence that the verified complaint is fraudulent and a commission of perjury then a judge can dismiss it, but failing that, the state is compelled to act on that verified complaint.

As it stands now, only a miniscule amount of people are even aware they hold the inherent political power let alone have the authority to file verified complaints, and instead surrender their authority to "civil rights attorneys" who make it a civil matter rather than a criminal matter. However, if someone has successfully brought a rogue law enforcement officer to trial and gained conviction for their crimes, this does not preclude a civil suit, but once the People begin exercising their inherent political power and using verified complaints to prosecute criminal law enforcement, then this issue of strip searching is merely a concern for the guilty, and not at all one for the innocent.


edit on 3-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

it ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches did not forbid them.


from NYT

So they accept they are unreasonable searches but don't give a rats that they are 'prohibited' because that is a different word to 'forbid'! So it is semantics as much as anything else facilitating these despots power grab and the manipulation of two words that essentially mean the same to allow what they freely deem are 'unreasonable' actions and one step closer to what seems to be becoming more clearly an agenda.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Staying out of jail is easy? They are not talking about searching people before an arrest and most arrested are and have always been guilty.

Why would anyone who is not a criminal have a problem with this?


Seriously you don't get why its a problem that scotus rescinded the fourth amendment and is ruling that it is ok to violate international human rights treaties of which our country is a signatory? You really don't get that its a problem??

Its people like you that are traitors to this country, and the liberty that it is supposed to uphold

1. Insenuating that nearly everyone arrested is guilty is not only absurd but its not factual, nor does it uphold the standard of innocent until proven guilty!!! What is wrong with you people that you can care so little for human rights? ??
2. Im not a criminal. I have a HUGE problem with this. Have you not seen the video of the guy getting arrested forbeing assaulted by an officer? This is unfortunately an increasingly common occurence. How about OWS or tea party protesters? They will now be rounded up and strip searched for voicing their rights (read no longer a right) to free speech.
3. Do you not recall what the tsa has been doing?? What planet are you on??
4. This will be used to further oppress citizens with unjust laws. Laws are not just just because they are laws. Reference stalin and hitler if you are unfamiliar with history. Or if you like current events refernce north korea.

I couldn't be more frustrated with the laziness and general willful ignorance of the greater portion of citizens of this country. Where are you people? Can't you even stand up for your own good, or do my words fall on deaf ears? Perhaps I should forget my outrage because it is long past the time when it would remotely help. The truth is that hardly anyone cares and that makes me absolutely sick as a person.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedonk


it ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches did not forbid them.


from NYT

So they accept they are unreasonable searches but don't give a rats that they are 'prohibited' because that is a different word to 'forbid'! So it is semantics as much as anything else facilitating these despots power grab and the manipulation of two words that essentially mean the same to allow what they freely deem are 'unreasonable' actions and one step closer to what seems to be becoming more clearly an agenda.


It is not a matter of semantics. The challenge brought to the Court was not one of jurisdiction, but one of policy. Because of this, the Court viewed the challenge with an eye towards a reasonable search as opposed to an unreasonable search. An unreasonable search is one that is outside the scope of jurisdiction and if a Plaintiff intends to challenge that jurisdiction then this must be made clear from the outset. Failing that challenge, the Plaintiff has - albeit tacitly - granted jurisdiction and is merely arguing policy not law.

The facts of the case are that Albert Florence had seven years prior plead guilty to charges of obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon...


In 1998, seven years before the incidents at issue, petitioner Albert Florence was arrested after fleeing from police officers in Essex County, New Jersey. He was charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine in monthly installments. In 2003, after he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later; but, for some unexplained reason, the warrant remained in a statewide computer database.


...the "unexplained reason" that the arrest warrant remained in the computer base was not the arresting officers fault, nor was it the fault of any of the jailers who performed the strip search, and because of this, the Court took a view that these law enforcement personnel had acted upon good faith and were within their jurisdiction, and Florence did not appear to offer any valid challenge of that jurisdiction.


Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jersey, petitioner and his wife were stopped in their automobile by a state trooper. Based on the outstanding warrant in the computer system, the officer arrested petitioner and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center. He was held there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility. It is not the arrest or confinement but the search process at each jail that gives rise to the claims before the Court.


This ruling is not a game of semantics or any form of trickery but is based upon sound legal reasoning.

This does not mean that if you or anyone else is unlawfully detained, or arrested, that strip searches are perfectly acceptable. All case law deals with the very narrow scope of the facts.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Why are people shocked? TSA has been strip searching at the airports for a long time now and no one cares. This is why they got this passed. Now everyone please go back to dancing with the stars, it's going to be OK.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Why would you have a problem with being implanted with a chip that tracks your every movement? Nobody will take advantage of it. Why would you have a problem with an officer coming into your house and routinely going through your things? Unless, of course, you're a criminal.



And i'm pretty sure every single one of us can be found in breach of some law if they looked hard enough, i had a friend who had issues with the traffic police here in scotland, and the officer basically said that if they wanted to they can find something to charge you with no matter how new or "clean" your car may be, if they want to find something they will

Same applies to your home, i am no law breaker, but i know if a squad of coppers came into my home and stripped it to bits scrutinising everything i'm sure theres something here they could charge me with no matter how small it may be

We are entitled to privacy, and the "if you're not a criminal youve nothing to hide so why care" attitude is very very narrow minded, maby the police should subject you to a weekly search and impant a tracking chip on you and see how long it takes before you start complaining

It seems we are moving away from the innocent until proven guilty to prove your innocence

Scary times...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


WOW, that is messed up. I guess I'll be put in prison because they wont strip search me without a fight.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Nah man strip search is where they make you spread your cheeks and cough that kinda thing they do at prison's.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


The Supreme Court has ruled, so this is law going forward into the future. Who's to say that in 25 years strip searching will be as common as taking fingerprints, just to make a body map of where all the stuff is. No, not that stuff, I mean tats and birthmarks and the size and shape of things - just for the files, maam.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Aleister because: edit



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


The Supreme Court has ruled, so this is law going forward into the future. Who's to say that in 25 years strip searching will be as common as taking fingerprints, just to make a body map of where all the stuff is. No, not that stuff, I mean tats and birthmarks and the size and shape of things - just for the files, maam.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Aleister because: edit



And, we all know how well the whole body scan process is working out with the TSA. We know that NO ONE would use it to exploit civilians at an airport.

We know that NO ONE would use strip searches as a threat or intimitdation to get more information since they can legally proceed with it.

Also only the guilty would be worried about a strip search. Clearly anyone who is innocent would have NO PROBLEM getting strip searched.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hapablab
 
one word "STRIP" yes it does mean just that, SLC has been doing it for a few years now, they said it was for their safety and yours, but what it really is they get their jolly's off. now bend over and spread cheeks, here come Mr glove, open mouth, lift tong, look behind ears, hair pins and piercings a BIG no no



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I can see a lot more women with appealing proportions becoming suspect.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...the "unexplained reason" that the arrest warrant remained in the computer base was not the arresting officers fault, nor was it the fault of any of the jailers who performed the strip search, and because of this, the Court took a view that these law enforcement personnel had acted upon good faith and were within their jurisdiction, and Florence did not appear to offer any valid challenge of that jurisdiction.


This is the distinction that many don't want to even look upon. Florence didn't challenge the mistake committed by the arresting officer or the city for not clearing the issue up regarding his warrant. Instead he fought the officers that were as you stated, following sound procedure.

The Court made a sound argument against this. Can they effectively and safely carve out an exception for low-risk offenders that are processed through the intake procedures?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


The genuinely frustrating thing about this is that it is being spun as "another example" of the SCOTUS trampling over people's rights. The Supreme Court of late has shown a profound respect for rights and yet if one reads the main stream media or watches it, this fact is completely ignored and fraud and disingenuous claims are made instead.

I would like to just re-iterate that the SCOTUS did not in anyway give a free pass to lawlessness by law enforcement, and if a person is unlawfully arrested and this is shown on record, that record should be used to file a verified complaint (criminal complaint that compels the Sheriff to arrest, and the D.A. to prosecute, and a judge to allow this prosecution to take its course) against the offending person. Not officer, because if someone is unlawfully arrested, even if that is by a person who is employed by a law enforcement agency, at that moment of false arrest that person is not in anyway, shape, or form, an officer of the law and is instead operating outside the scope of their jurisdiction and acting upon their own personal beliefs.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


We have entered in such a dark police state that is unprecedented since the time of the Nazi's. We have to come together and think this through. Our only hope now is that our military generals and such will restore us to our original constitution. Lets pray.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I would like to just re-iterate that the SCOTUS did not in anyway give a free pass to lawlessness by law enforcement


Indeed! Here Chief Justice Roberts explains and in concurrence with Justice Alito (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 Court recognizes that the ruling cannot be held as a blank check to law enforcement to engage in lawlessness. It also keeps a "door-stop" in the case -- so that if a reasonable exception can be carved out without jeopardizing the safety of those involved in the system (from correctional officer to accused offenders to hardened criminals) than that exception should be recognized.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Oh wonderful! There is absolutely, positively, no way this law can be abused right? Like that perverted cop who pulls over your wife or mother with a chub in his pants, gets a hankering to see her tatas and he is legally protected to do so.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join