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

I think this is an eye opener so I started a new thread because I think this warrants the public attention.

This bothers me deeply. Having the patriot act passed was enough. This scares me a bit.

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.

What really bothers me about this statement is: if the cops had searched the car, would they actualy find information that he is a terrorist? Would have have a manual on the back with the plans in plain sight?

I thought these people were supposed to be intelligent, but to use such faulty logic is disturbing to me.

Sorry, but a guy not paying a fine doesn't mean he is a terrorist.

huffington post

In other words...

You're a terrorist until proven otherwise.

I've always wanted to visit the States but I won't be until all this changes and civil liberties are reinstated. Until then, I'll just watch "Cheers" and "Friends" on re-run.

reply to post by nixie_nox


So, by their logic if the "terrorist" had been searched 911 wouldn't have happened?

What? Did he have his box cutter up his ass for 2 days prior to the event or something?

"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.

Going by their logic ( or lack of it ), they're saying this guy was driving around with box cutters up his rear end?

BTW....where have all the "what rights have you lost since 9/11?" people gone?

Embarrassed now that we were right?

So just to jump ahead a bit, the Supreme Court, ideally, wants all speeders strip-searched? This is WELL over the line imo.

reply to post by Urantia1111


Basically.

This evening I am going to see if there are any statistics on how many people are actually cought with drugs or weapons when strip searched.

But not only was this man searched TWICE, he was kept in jail for a week till they found that the warrant was wrong.

I wonder if he can sue for wrongful arrest.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
BTW....where have all the "what rights have you lost since 9/11?" people gone?

Embarrassed now that we were right?

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

I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that we lost our rights as a result of 9/11. It's really stupid, and this is more so. There should always be reasonable suspicion for a search, not just arbitrary searches.

If anything, this is also a way for them to inflate their drug war more. Now, if you get a ticket, they can search your car for anything they want to.

Originally posted by Varemia
I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that we lost our rights as a result of 9/11.

Are you pretty sure?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or were you just going off your own opinion?

I'm pretty sure I can find more threads if need be.

Normal people have lost nothing in the way of rights.
Only criminally suspisious people have. And police are very good a detecting who is hiding something by their actions. That is one of their greatest skills.

Come to the US. Enjoy how no one hassels you.

One thing I noticed from my travels in the UK.
In the UK the general rule seems to be it's not allowed unless legislated to be legal.
Here it's allowed unless it's legislated to be illegal.

Even if he had a box cutter on him and it was found..... That is hardly illegal. I usually have one or two in my pocket when I am going to work myself. And a knife on my belt. It wouldn't have meant a difference at all....

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

So, by their logic if the "terrorist" had been searched 911 wouldn't have happened?

What? Did he have his box cutter up his ass for 2 days prior to the event or something?

This ruling does not authorize cavity searches and does not over ride the laws in 16 states that already prohibit strip searches in cases of minor offenses and applies only when the arrested will be held with the jail or prison population. As for the "boxcutter" - the strip search allows the authorities to search the clothing, the weapon did need to be secreted in the suspects "cavaties" in order to be found.

You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that no rights at all have been impinged upon as a result of 9/11. Although that probably doesn't say much about it being a conspiracy either way.

You would also have to be pretty stupid to think that you were living in some sort of giant gulag since 9/11. The US remains one of the most free countries in the world. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be on your guard.

Originally posted by samkent
Normal people have lost nothing in the way of rights.
Only criminally suspisious people have. And police are very good a detecting who is hiding something by their actions. That is one of their greatest skills.

Come to the US. Enjoy how no one hassels you.

One thing I noticed from my travels in the UK.
In the UK the general rule seems to be it's not allowed unless legislated to be legal.
Here it's allowed unless it's legislated to be illegal.

That's actually a very flawed argument, the time-old "only the guilty need fear the law." In this country, criminally suspicious seems to mean anyone who is not white and dressed in nice clothes. Police may be good at knowing when someone is hiding something, but that gives them no right to go through your belongings without legitimate cause.

I've seen too many people who were perfectly innocent get in trouble because the police wanted to reach their arrest/ticket quota. Cameras have only caught a small percentage of the injustice caused by the lack of supervision of one of the more powerful groups. Privacy is important, and there are so many stupid laws that if someone wanted to bust you for something, even if you tried to be as legal and "good" as possible, the police would be able to find something.

Originally posted by hooper
This ruling does not authorize cavity searches

The man in question had his cavity searched.

Court records show Florence was subjected to an invasive strip and visual body-cavity search.

www.cnn.com...

There may not have been penetration but a cavity search was done none-the-less.

reply to post by HandyDandy


Ok, invasive cavity searches. Not visual inspections.

However, the point is the same. The court found that they need to defer to the persons in charge of the correctional facilities. If you listen to some of the paranoia out there you would think that the court just authorized anyone with a uniform to knock down the front door of your house and strip search your family at gunpoint.

All govts are using the same excuse to abuse their citizens. Last week it was sarkozy and now in the UK we have camoron spouting the same bs. Terrorists? The govts are the real terrorists.

I find it absolutely amazing how people select certain words and language yet ignore others words and language that put it all into perspective. Let me help you out a bit. There is 3 words that put this whole thing into some context..."NEW JAIL INMATES" It is even in the title of the Huffington Post article linked in the OP. You can read it in the Court's decision. You can read it in the other 2 threads on this same subject. If you are pulled over for speeding, you are not subject to strip search. No where does it say this. If you are arrested and being booked into a jail, you will be strip searched...and guess what? It has been that way since the beginning of time. This is why this case even came before the Supreme Court.

This whole case is about one man who was traveling with his wife. His wife was driving and they got pulled over. They ran the ID of the man and it came back with a warrant. This has been an on going issue and the man even kept a letter on his person, at all times, that said his warrant was taken care of. However, police did not believe him and did not care what his letter said and they arrested him. They took him to jail where he was stripped searched. Then he was transferred to another facility, where upon arrival he was stripped searched again. THIS is what the case is about. The Supreme Court ruling simply says it was ok for this man to be stripped searched and guess what?? It was ok.

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.

Step 1. You are taken to the jail. You are asked some basic questions and give up SOME of your belongings. Money, sharp objects, wallets, jewelry, belts, whatever you are not wearing to prevent nakedness. This is generally a cooling down period. Some jails have an open area with chairs, where you are permitted to take a seat. For this step in the process there is no strip search. The way you are treated is generally dictated by the way you act. Correction Officers (C.O.s) did not arrest you. Their job is to babysit you and they do not care to hear your crap. There is nothing they can do to undo your arrest so your complaining serves no purpose but to tick them off. Don't do it. You will be frisked and patted down by C.O.'s prior to sitting or being taken to your holding cell.. This now beings the start of the booking process.

Step 2. The booking process. You get to wait forever while the CO's book and process other people. Some will go home and make bail. Some will become inmates. Eventually you will be taken aside, asked some questions, give up information about yourself. You will be photographed and fingerprinted. If you have tattoos or scars, these will be photographed as well. What happens next depends on who you are and what you are charged with. Minor offenses will be granted bail immediately, serious offenses becomes inmates.

Step 3. This step depends on your situation, your arrest and your charges. If you are in for traffic tickets, you will more than likely be granted bail and pointed into the direction of a phone to call a bail bondsman or family. If that is not an option, you will be booked into the facility as an Inmate.

Step 4. If you made bail you go home. No strip search. No nothing extreme. If you are being booked into the jail as an Inmate, that is a whole new ballgame. You will have all your clothing taken, all you possessions. You will given a jumpsuit, usually sandals. You will be given a shower, sometimes given a powder for lice and bugs, and you will be strip searched before you enter the section of the facility that houses inmates.

That is the way it has always worked. If you leave the area that houses inmates, you are subject to strip search upon returning. All this talk of being strip searched for being pulled over is a complete over exaggeration. Again, it is in the title of the Huff Post article, it is in the judgement of the court. It says as plain as day, "Jail Inmates".

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by hooper
This ruling does not authorize cavity searches

The man in question had his cavity searched.

Court records show Florence was subjected to an invasive strip and visual body-cavity search.

www.cnn.com...

There may not have been penetration but a cavity search was done none-the-less.

Again this is normal procedure. If you would like to know how it is done, it is very simple. You are told to bend over ans spread your cheeks. Sometimes you are told to cough. While you do this, a CO gets behind you and looks up your butt. There is no touching, unless the CO sees something.

You will go through this process every time you leave the facility upon your return. If you go to court, you will be strip searched when you return to the jail before they put you back into the general population. If you are permitted to go out and work, when you return you will be strip searched. This is the way it has always been done, it is nothing new. The Supreme Court basically ruled to continue doing things the same way they have always been done. That's it.

As I said in my previous post, this is even the procedure for juveniles. I had my first strip search at the ripe old age of 13 years old.

Originally posted by hooper
If you listen to some of the paranoia out there you would think that the court just authorized anyone with a uniform to knock down the front door of your house and strip search your family at gunpoint.

Paranoia?

en.wikipedia.org...

NDAA

www.nwitimes.com...

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

www.cnn.com...



Police can enter your home at anytime they want. You have no recourse. They can then strip search you. And then hold you indefinately.

Paranoid? Seriously?