Supreme Court uses 911 as a reason to ok all strip searches.

Originally posted by MrWendal

This is what happens when you are an inmate. It has NEVER mattered what you are charged with, if you are an Inmate and you are going to be housed in a jail, you are ALWAYS stripped searched before you enter the jail. They even do it to juveniles and they always have. If you go outside the jail for any reason, you are stripped searched before going back in. If you go to court, you are stripped searched before you go back into jail. If you are moved from one jail to another, you are stripped searched before you go into the new jail. This ruling applies to INMATES. Being arrested and being an inmate are 2 different things.

People have to understand there are several different process to go through once you are arrested.

iv'e been to court and prison and wasn't strip searched, seems to me you're talking out of your bung hole.

deny ignorance eh.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

iv'e been to court and prison and wasn't strip searched, seems to me you're talking out of your bung hole.

deny ignorance eh.

Read the ruling. It gives those who are responsible for the safety of inmates and detainees the latitude to conduct strip searches. It does not require them.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

iv'e been to court and prison and wasn't strip searched, seems to me you're talking out of your bung hole.

deny ignorance eh.

Read the ruling. It gives those who are responsible for the safety of inmates and detainees the latitude to conduct strip searches. It does not require them.

and that pertains to my reply how? the person i replied to stated they always do that and they always have, i said BS they haven't always done either always.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Just trying to clarify. They don't always do it and this ruling does not require anyone to conduct strip searches. It is at the discretion of the holding authority.

reply to post by hooper


It took massive trials and the city fighting it every step of the way to ever get the police prosecuted for improper searches and behavior.

So not only are you being dehumanized, then you have to fight the system again to get the perverts prosecuted.

The solution is simple, don't put minor offenses in with the other prison populations, if they are truley worried about safey.

reply to post by nixie_nox

The solution is simple, don't put minor offenses in with the other prison populations, if they are truley worried about safey.

Actually, the solution you are mandating is really at the core of the problem. Most law enforcement authorities don't have the resources to be segregating persons by percieved category of danger. Also, your post makes the point in citing the plural nature of the problem - "offenses". Do you put two "minor" offenses together in the same cell unsearched? What if one of the minors is, in fact, a serial killer (Ted Bundy, after he esscaped from a prison in Colorado (?) was stopped for a minor traffic violation, etc., etc.)? If you are sitting locked in a cell with a person would it not be nice to know that at least someone checked the other person for weapons?

Originally posted by HandyDandy

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.

Agreed, but you are also assuming that anyone who becomes an Inmate becomes one due to "trumped" up charges. That is not factual. Does it happen? Absolutely it does. Is everyone who is in jail, in there due to trumped up charges? Absolutely not.

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

Mr Florence became an inmate due to a warrant. Not due to a traffic stop. The warrant issued for his arrest had to do with an "unpaid fine" which he had paid. This is a clerical error, this is an issue about the procedure and policies of whichever department this went though. What it is not, is a Constitutional issue.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by MrWendal

This is what happens when you are an inmate. It has NEVER mattered what you are charged with, if you are an Inmate and you are going to be housed in a jail, you are ALWAYS stripped searched before you enter the jail. They even do it to juveniles and they always have. If you go outside the jail for any reason, you are stripped searched before going back in. If you go to court, you are stripped searched before you go back into jail. If you are moved from one jail to another, you are stripped searched before you go into the new jail. This ruling applies to INMATES. Being arrested and being an inmate are 2 different things.

People have to understand there are several different process to go through once you are arrested.

iv'e been to court and prison and wasn't strip searched, seems to me you're talking out of your bung hole.

deny ignorance eh.

#1. You wont be strip searched for going to court.

#2. Mr. Florence was not stripped searched for going to Court.

#3. You did not go to a State Prison. If you were in a State Prison, you were stripped searched. That is standard procedure for a State Inmate. State Inmates get stripped searched after each visitation. The especially get stripped searched upon arrival into the facility before being placed with the general population. Do not confuse your local jail or the County jail with a State Prison. They are completely different things.

#4. Someone here is talking out their bung hole, but it sure is not me.

reply to post by nixie_nox



If I am Legally "detained for minor offenses" - I have no problem with them strip searching me to prove I am not a danger to myself, others or am carrying illegal substances or weapons.

Sure it's a bother and time consuming but if I am searched properly, without intent to injure me, just a fact finding mission, then I'm o.k. with it - doesn't bother me at all.

I do not believe strip searching is a violation of my rights.

The title of this thread is misleading.

I do agree that using the example of a speeder is bad form.

All crime fighting and defense rationales seek to prevent bad things from ever happening. You see this in pre-emptive wars and fake prostitues (undercover cops) and other things. So when the person used the speeder as an example, they were referencing their desire to better prevent future terrorism. Whether it's being able to search a car or strip search somebody you suspect has hidden intentions, all of it's an excuse to prevent potential negative realities. The sad thing is... we'll never know if they were right.

For example, is the world better off that we invaded Iraq in 2003 and later captured Saddam and executed him after prosecution? Or would it have been better to have not invaded? We'll never know.

This reminds me of mini-marts putting up bulletproof plexiglass at the cashier station and buttoning up all of the more expensive things and treating customers like they could be a potential robbery suspect.

Originally posted by hooper
If you are sitting locked in a cell with a person would it not be nice to know that at least someone checked the other person for weapons?

Checking a person for weapons and contraband is one thing. A strip search is another. They do NOT have to be the same thing.

You guys are acting like if someone is not strip searched, then they were not even searched at all. Which is the biggest, stupidest, train of thought I have ever heard.

Why aren't you guys lobbying to be strip searched to get on a plane? After all, that's where this 9/11 terrorist did his damage......not in a jail or a holding cell.

reply to post by HandyDandy

Checking a person for weapons and contraband is one thing. A strip search is another. They do NOT have to be the same thing.

And they aren't the same thing, however, strip search is the safest course. And this is about safety.

You guys are acting like if someone is not strip searched, then they were not even searched at all. Which is the biggest, stupidest, train of thought I have ever heard.

No, just simply observing that a strip search is the safest course.

Why aren't you guys lobbying to be strip searched to get on a plane? After all, that's where this 9/11 terrorist did his damage......not in a jail or a holding cell.

Not lobbying for strip searches at all. Just noting that it is the safest course when you are dealing with a portion of the population for which there was reasonable cause to be detained for violation of the law - not the public at large.

Originally posted by hooper
Just noting that it is the safest course when you are dealing with a portion of the population for which there was reasonable cause to be detained for violation of the law - not the public at large.

Which does not include a traffic stop of a terrorist 2 days prior to 9/11.

Which nullifies your entire point.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by hooper
If you are sitting locked in a cell with a person would it not be nice to know that at least someone checked the other person for weapons?

Checking a person for weapons and contraband is one thing. A strip search is another. They do NOT have to be the same thing.

But they are the same thing. We are talking about Inmates. People who will stick a toothbrush up their backside so they can make it into a weapon later. People who will stick some dope up their backside either for their own use, the use of others, to gain power or even money. Clearly you are not too aware of what goes on in some jails and prisons within the US.

You guys are acting like if someone is not strip searched, then they were not even searched at all. Which is the biggest, stupidest, train of thought I have ever heard.

No one is saying that at all. As a "detainee", you will not be stripped searched. As an "Inmate" you will be. There are two completely different statuses. This is the point you seem to keep missing.

Why aren't you guys lobbying to be strip searched to get on a plane? After all, that's where this 9/11 terrorist did his damage......not in a jail or a holding cell.

A person getting on a plane is not an "inmate".

Originally posted by MrWendal
We are talking about Inmates.

No. We are talking about the traffic stop of a 9/11 terrorist.

Two mutually exclusive things.

No one is saying that at all. As a "detainee", you will not be stripped searched. As an "Inmate" you will be. There are two completely different statuses. This is the point you seem to keep missing.

And the point you keep missing is that at no point was this terrorist a "detainee" nor an "inmate". So this whole diatribe about detainees vs. inmates is moot.......which I brought up 2 pages ago.

A person getting on a plane is not an "inmate".

Nor is a 9/11 terrorist being stopped for a traffic violation.

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of using the traffic stop of a 9/11 terrorist as justification for the need for inmates to be strip searched. I do agree with the need to search inmates.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
No. We are talking about the traffic stop of a 9/11 terrorist.

Two mutually exclusive things.]/quote]

No we are not. Now your just playing with words. One Justice made mention of a 9/11 terrorist being pulled over, the actual ruling is very clear in using the word "inmate".

And the point you keep missing is that at no point was this terrorist a "detainee" nor an "inmate". So this whole diatribe about detainees vs. inmates is moot.......which I brought up 2 pages ago.

What "terrorist" would you be talking about? The man to whom this entire case is about, was an inmate. He was held in 2 different facilities over a period of 6 days.

Nor is a 9/11 terrorist being stopped for a traffic violation.

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of using the traffic stop of a 9/11 terrorist as justification for the need for inmates to be strip searched. I do agree with the need to search inmates.

Well actually this is where you and I are in agreement. Bringing up a 9/11 terrorist being pulled over was a pointless comparison to make.

edit on 8-4-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

reply to post by nixie_nox


Forgive me for pointing-out the obvious;
Clearly the Supreme Court considers the 911 terrorists were American?

Why else target Americans?

The real travesty here would be if Salma Hayek gets strip searched and it doesn't end up on youtube.

Sorry, links won't work

www.yolohub.com...]http://www.yolo hub.com/featured/america-2012-the-supreme-court-has-made-it-legal-for-the-police-to-strip-search-you-any-time-they-want

www... .yolohub.com/featured/america-2012-the-supreme-court-has-made-it-legal-for-the-police-to-strip-search-you-any-time-they-want]Click Here for link:

Why isn't this known by everyone?



They even have the Supreme Court decision linked on the page.

This is the first that I have even heard that this was put to law accross America???

Not even one single MSM link when googled showed up???

WTF???

Here is another related link:

www.cnn.com... x.html

I remember hearing something like this was coming, but didn't know it was actually allready hee...

Just to crazy to think that ANYONE could be searched for any crime...