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 Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest


www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also publ“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a c
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Did search and could not find thought lots of people would be interested to see it.

What the very damn hell is this? The supreme court just running roughshod over state laws:


The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures.


The creeping state controls and powers they are awarding themselves is getting crazy.


The federal appeals courts had been split on the question, though most of them prohibited strip-searches unless they were based on a reasonable suspicion that contraband was present. The Supreme Court did not say that strip-searches of every new arrestee were required; it ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches did not forbid them.


Can you call it a constitution anymore? It seems to have been totally diluted and taken away from you America. (OBAMA - Order Butchery of the constituiton And Manipulate America.)

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 3-4-2012 by spacedonk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Well pretty soon they're gonna get it to the point where they can do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. The FBI is already allowed to search your house without a warrant, for no reason at all.
edit on 3-4-2012 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Unless people yank the plug on their employees, and not just a few pretty little protests, but bullhorns and their own bills drawn up and private investigators pinning them on crimes, and having their own people's private police make the arrests if the ones their tax dollars are paying for dont.

Do not tolerate it. A Bully is only a Bully if he has a willing audience. They're wuss's when people stand up with fierce determination to send them to the corner.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
this is the bit i just do not get:


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


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 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Messed up news. Someone beat you to it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
i could very well be wrong, but i have been sent to jail before and i was strip searched before being put in with other people. i thought this was standard operation for the safety of the officers and the general population.
from many points of view it makes sense and i would think it necessary and this is coming from some one that has experienced it. no it was not pleasant at all...

now having said that, if i was to become aware that and perhaps some one could educate me on this with
some verifiable proof in law. that we are protected by rights/law of strip search on being incarcerated. then i would fully stand behind and support this.

i do believe in supporting the rights of all peoples, i have never seen this as law. unless you meant the unreasonable search and seizure one, but then i did not think it applied to being incarcerated. please some one knowledgeable in law educate me on this with some links i can study for my self...


thanks for your time...


robert



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by redbarron626
 


thsnks i thought it must have been posted but searched and could not find it



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Don't commit any crimes and you don't have to worry about a strip search



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
Don't commit any crimes and you don't have to worry about a strip search


This is fallaciousness. People are falsely arrested on a regular basis. That said, this particular ruling was not based upon any false arrest as the arresting officer was not at fault for the computer glitch that kept Florence's bench warrant in the system even after Florence resolved the issue. It was certainly not the fault of the jailers who acted within policy with their strip search. These parties acted in good faith and because of this did not falsely arrest and subsequently strip search Florence.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Well we all know now that voting for puppets every few years means we still get stuffed no matter who wins the fixed race.

Some people think small protests and lots of talking is the answer but cowards would say that.

Wake me up when people catch up on history lessons and understand that the terrorists in power will not be removed before a lot of blood is spilled, not a question it all a matter of facts.

The internet is going underground using the Tor network due to all the BS from our leaders but only because too few people will stand and fight to keep the above ground internet free so could be us "internet terrorists" as H Clinton call us need our own domain to play in and the rest can learn to STFU when they are told why still spreading the theory that democracy is working.


edit on 3-4-2012 by Master_007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Wow, and I thought us Brits had it bad being completely unjustifiable spied on through all our comms!

But this! THIS!

It's getting out of hand.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


S&F Didn't johncarter start a thread entitled "We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" not that many weeks ago?

The title of his thread says it all. We are in a totalitarian state already -- it just hasn't become obvious to the masses.

That the Supreme Court can uphold this, means they have no interest in protecting the average citizen or the founding documents of this country.

It would not surprise me if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare.

What the Obama supporters do not understand is that Obamacare isn't really about healthcare. It's really about a massive expansion of Federal power. It's about creating more opportunities for the Feds to confiscate private income in the form of higher taxes & penalties.

And how do you think the Feds are going to spend the increased revenue?

To help the common man? No chance.

It will disappear into the pockets of their cronies -- corrupt politicians, civil servants, union bosses, corporate heads, privateers, etc.

Extracted from the article:

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

Have a good day.


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



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
In addition to being charged with detaining those persons being held for trial, under the orders of a magistrate, the jail administration is responsible and liable for the health and safety of those held. If you disapprove of a strip search, to prevent the introduction of weapons into a jail, how would you propose accomplishing that task, keeping in mind you are subject to criminal and civil penalties for failure.

What kind of thread would you present, when deaths of the incarcerated begin to skyrocket?

What kind of thread would you present, when your county government is bankrupt from civil suits for increased overdoses, assaults and murders?

Searches on the street, without probable cause and/or a warrant--- Unreasonable.
Searches of your home, without probable cause and/or a warrant--- Unreasonable.
Search of your person, immediately prior to confinement in a jail or prison--- Reasonable.
edit on 3-4-2012 by WTFover because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedonk

...The creeping state controls and powers they are awarding themselves is getting crazy.

...Can you call it a constitution anymore? It seems to have been totally diluted and taken away from you America. (OBAMA - Order Butchery of the constituiton And Manipulate America.)



Obama/Democrats nominated judges who were AGAINST this ruling. It was REPUBLICAN nominated judges who carried this ruling.


Justice Breyer wrote that there was very little empirical support for the idea that strip-searches detect contraband that would not have been found had jail officials used less intrusive means, particularly if strip-searches were allowed when officials had a reasonable suspicion that they would find something.

For instance, in a study of 23,000 people admitted to a correctional facility in Orange County, N.Y., using that standard, there was at most one instance of contraband detected that would not otherwise have been found,

Judge Breyer wrote. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Breyer’s dissent.


Far right wing paranoia combines with an authoritarian bent to give us the Daddy State, where we are guilty till proven innocent and Daddy must administer harsh punishment if we don't follow his rules.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
This is proof republics are B.S.

We need mob rule so there wont be any B.S. from the law.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AuranVector
reply to post by spacedonk
 


S&F Didn't johncarter start a thread entitled "We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" not that many weeks ago?

The title of his thread says it all. We are in a totalitarian state already -- it just hasn't become obvious to the masses.

That the Supreme Court can uphold this, means they have no interest in protecting the average citizen or the founding documents of this country.

It would not surprise me if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare.

What the Obama supporters do not understand is that Obamacare isn't really about healthcare. It's really about a massive expansion of Federal power. It's about creating more opportunities for the Feds to confiscate private income in the form of higher taxes & penalties.

And how do you think the Feds are going to spend the increased revenue?

To help the common man? No chance.

It will disappear into the pockets of their cronies -- corrupt politicians, civil servants, union bosses, corporate heads, privateers, etc.

Extracted from the article:

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

Have a good day.


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


the republican conservative right-wing supreme court are the ones that voted for this decision, it had nothing to do with Obama,
the republican conservative right-wing supreme court are the ones that voted for corporations to have the same rights as humans as it pertains to the constitutional bill of rights. Obama had nothing to do with that

so...voting for republicans, as far as i can see it, means you are voting for people that use the law to take away your rights



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Sure, as long as we can strip search the
Supreme Court Judges when they make a
stupid ruling. And see if we can find any bits
of law that may be stuck up their ***.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kluute
Wow, and I thought us Brits had it bad being completely unjustifiable spied on through all our comms!

But this! THIS!

It's getting out of hand.


This IS out of hand.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Its beginning to look a lot like Chris ~ Nazi.

whatreallyhappened.com...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join