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 uses 911 as a reason to ok all strip searches.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I've had to spend two nights in jail and was NEVER strip searched.

Standard procedure?




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I've had to spend two nights in jail and was NEVER strip searched.

Standard procedure?



Did you spend that night or two in the booking area and in a holding cell. Or did you spend that night or to in the main facility with the general population of inmates?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Did you spend that night or two in the booking area and in a holding cell. Or did you spend that night or to in the main facility with the general population of inmates?


What's the difference?

Both have the potential to be places where contraband can be snuck in and used on another or oneself.

I would think a holding cell full of drunks would be far more dangerous than a cell with just one or two people in it who are sober. But both have the potential for contraband.

Go ahead and call me paranoid though for showing the sleeping masses that these laws are being put in place for a reason. Just like in 1930's Germany.

You do know that everything Hitler did while in power was fully legal at the time in Germany?



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



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 



Both have the potential to be places where contraband can be snuck in and used on another or oneself.


Well, when you consider the general "clientele" that one runs into in jails, didn't you feel a little better knowing that they were well searched before you were locked in a cell with them?

You can talk about Hitler and nazis all you want, but the fact is any American has the potential, rightfully or not, to end up in a jail cell so its in everyone's best interest to make those place as safe as possible.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
but the fact is any American has the potential, rightfully or not, to end up in a jail cell so its in everyone's best interest to make those place as safe as possible.


The old addage........"you must relinquish your rights for a little security".

Sorry but I can't stand that train of thought.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 



The old addage........"you must relinquish your rights for a little security".

Sorry but I can't stand that train of thought.


I'm sorry - exactly what "right" are you relinquishing? I am not familiar with any right that stops you from ever being stopped or arrested or detained. And once detained, though not convicted, I am sure you feel you have a "right" to a safe and humane detention. But I guess the police are supposed to only search the "other" people in the cell, not you - right?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I am sure you feel you have a "right" to a safe and humane detention.


Yes, I do feel that way. Minor offenses with minor offenses would seriously hinder the "oh no....I'm in a cell with a murderer" syndrom.

Go ahead and search murderers and major offenders. But don't search me because I was caught speeding and now have to endure the crap while the jarheads figure out if the computer is correct or not about my warrant being outstanding.


But I guess the police are supposed to only search the "other" people in the cell, not you - right?


If I was in a cell with like minded offenders when it was only a speeding offense with outstanding warrants.........then no. No real need to strip search anyone.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I'm sorry - exactly what "right" are you relinquishing?


Unreasonable search and siezure for one.

Both of my physical body.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Getting back to the topic.

We are talking about the SC using the traffic stop.......not detention.......of a terrorist of 9/11 as justification.

So, the whole argument about being in a holding cell vs. general population vs. traffic stop is moot from the get-go.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
What's the difference?

Both have the potential to be places where contraband can be snuck in and used on another or oneself.

I would think a holding cell full of drunks would be far more dangerous than a cell with just one or two people in it who are sober. But both have the potential for contraband.


First of all there is a huge difference as I explained in my first (very long) post in this thread. The main difference is really how the "prisoner" views his options. Someone who is looking at making bail and going home is not much of a security risk at all. A Holding Cell with a bunch of drunks who will be released when they sober up, is not a likely candidate to take a toothbrush, make it into a shank, kill a CO and make a break for it.


Go ahead and call me paranoid though for showing the sleeping masses that these laws are being put in place for a reason. Just like in 1930's Germany.

You do know that everything Hitler did while in power was fully legal at the time in Germany?



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


Well I have not called you paranoid at all, there are many things being done today within a legal framework and you are correct in saying this is what Hitler did. Every single thing Hitler did, including sending people to camps, was all perfectly legal and that legal framework was put in place in advance.

That being said, you are starting with an assumption that what is being presented here is new. The truth is, it is not new at all. This procedure of strip searching inmates... and again we are not talking prisoners, we are talking inmates. People who will be living in the jail, amoung the other inmates.. has been going on for as long as I can remember. The Supreme Court did not make a new law, they upheld that same procedure that we have been using for inmates for 50 years or more. There is nothing new about this.

The issue with this case is not the fact that someone was stripped searched. It is about the fact that this someone was stripped searched a second time after be moved from one facility to another. This person thought it was a violation of his rights to strip search him again after being stripped searched to begin with. The truth is, it is not. This is what happens to inmates.

I am 40 years old now. As I said in my previous post my first strip search came at the age of 13. I was being held in a juvenile detention facility until my court date. When you arrive at the facility, you are stripped search. Then you are mixed in with the other inmates. When your court date comes up, you are moved. In my case, we were moved to the court house and placed in a holding cell within the court house until it was time to see the judge. After that, depending on what happens at court, you go home or you go back to the detention facility. If you go back to detention, you will be strip searched again upon arrival before being placed back into the population of other inmates. This is done mainly as a security issue. Once you are outside of a controlled environment you can pick up anything. You are being stripped searched to make sure you are not bringing anything back with you into this controlled environment. If this did not happen, it would not be a controlled environment now would it?

Inmates can make anything into a weapon. Something as harmless as a pencil makes a pretty good weapon and I can prove it. I was stabbed with a pencil and still have a piece of the graphite in my arm to prove it.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by hooper
but the fact is any American has the potential, rightfully or not, to end up in a jail cell so its in everyone's best interest to make those place as safe as possible.


The old addage........"you must relinquish your rights for a little security".

Sorry but I can't stand that train of thought.


Inmates have no rights. You lose all your rights the second you become an inmate. You can not even go to the bathroom and pee without permission when you are an inmate.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by hooper
I'm sorry - exactly what "right" are you relinquishing?


Unreasonable search and siezure for one.

Both of my physical body.



It is not an unreasonable search when you are an inmate in jail. As an inmate, the jail has the duty to protect not only the people who work at the jail, but the other inmates as well.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Getting back to the topic.

We are talking about the SC using the traffic stop.......not detention.......of a terrorist of 9/11 as justification.

So, the whole argument about being in a holding cell vs. general population vs. traffic stop is moot from the get-go.



Not actually it is not. They mention the traffic stop, but the ruling specifically says, "Inmates". When you are stopped at a traffic stop, you are not an inmate.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Not actually it is not. They mention the traffic stop, but the ruling specifically says, "Inmates". When you are stopped at a traffic stop, you are not an inmate.


Then why even mention the TRAFFIC STOP of a terrorist as justification for strip searches in the first place if it is only for inmates?

Back to my original questions.........how would a strip search of the TRAFFICALLY STOPPED terrorist hinder in any way the developement of 9/11?


The court refused to exempt minor offenders such as Florence from strip searches, stating that "[p]eople detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." As evidence for that claim, the majority invoked 9/11. "One of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93," Kennedy wrote.


How can the ruling be for only new inmates when they invoke the traffic stop of a 9/11 terrorist who NEVER was even detained let alone put in prison?

Also, I'm guessing that you guys think cops NEVER abuse their power? Maybe see where I am going with this?


edit on 5-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
When you are stopped at a traffic stop, you are not an inmate.


If they decide to "detain" you for any trumped up reason, then you will definately become one.

So yes, going from traffic stop to inmate can easily happen.......just ask Mr. Florence.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 



Then why even mention the TRAFFIC STOP of a terrorist as justification for strip searches in the first place if it is only for inmates?

The slip opinion is now online at the Supreme Court website. It mentions quite a few cases where very dangerous people were originally detained on very minor offenses including one of the 9/11 terrorsit. The idea is quite simple - you can't judge someone based only on the nature of the original stop. The search is done only for the security of the other inmates, detainees and the correction officers. It is quite reasonable.

Back to my original questions.........how would a strip search of the TRAFFICALLY STOPPED terrorist hinder in any way the developement of 9/11?

Since the search was not done, we can't know, we can only speculate. A search may have found some illegal weapon. We kind of know about the boxcutters but he may have had other weapons on him. What if he had a suicide note that said what he was going to do? Anything is possible. What if they had found drugs on him and detained him for a few days? Then instead of five hijackers there would have been four which may have changed the dynamic, maybe even to the extent that they cancelled one of the hijackings or all of them



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 



But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said the policy was designed in part to protect the safety of Florence and other inmates.


from your cnn link.


Here is a thought: don't put traffic violations in with the murderers.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


But having someone strip naked in front of a group of people, bend over and show their undercarriage is everybit as invasive.

There have been cases in the past women sued because not only were they subject to procedure, they found that the male cops were allowed to watch through a doorway or another room.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


It should be based on reasonable cause.. for that person.

One terrorist in Nebraska who gets stopped for a speeding ticket does not create a reasonable search for me.

This is a mindset that everyone is guilty. The man who brought the case up wasn't even in the wrong, he had proof he paid the fine. Yet he was still searched....twice and held in jail for 6 days.

This is a case of abuse by that police department, and he should of never have been put through that.

It is NOT enough of a safety issue to stomp on the fourth amendment.
edit on 5-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



But having someone strip naked in front of a group of people, bend over and show their undercarriage is everybit as invasive.

I take it you mean as invasive as a cavity search. Whatever. Group of people? It's the correctional facility staff members. Don't know how you get around that. You can't conduct a search with your eyes closed. No one is saying its nothing. There is just no other way to ensure the safety of the inmates, detainees and correctional facility staff.

There have been cases in the past women sued because not only were they subject to procedure, they found that the male cops were allowed to watch through a doorway or another room.

And there are sanctions in place, including fines and imprisonment for improper behavior.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join