strip search

Supreme Court says police can strip search citizens for any offense

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Supreme Court, strip search, police

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 now clearly a government cover-up: All evidence contradicts official story
White House admits staging fake vaccination operation to gather DNA from the public
EXCLUSIVE: Natural News tests flu vaccine for heavy metals, finds 25,000 times higher mercury level than EPA limit for water
Irrefutable proof we are all being sprayed with poison: 571 tons of toxic lead 'chemtrailed' into America's skies every year
Truvia sweetener a powerful pesticide; scientists shocked as fruit flies die in less than a week from eating GMO-derived erythritol
Russia taking McDonald's to court, threatens countrywide shutdown
Why does the CDC own a patent on Ebola 'invention?'
Senator who attacked Doctor Oz over dietary supplements received over $146,000 in campaign contributions from Big Pharma mega-retailer and Monsanto
Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions
Oregon man serving prison sentence for collecting rainwater on his own property
HOAX confirmed: Michelle Obama 'GMOs for children' campaign a parody of modern agricultural politics
U.S. treating meat with ammonia, bleach and antibiotics to kill the '24-hour sickness'
Ebola outbreak may already be uncontrollable; Monsanto invests in Ebola treatment drug company as pandemic spreads
Ben & Jerry's switches to non-GMO, Fair Trade ice cream ingredients
Diet soda, aspartame linked to premature deaths in women
Elliot Rodger, like nearly all young killers, was taking psychiatric drugs (Xanax)
Right to farm being stripped from Americans: Michigan to criminalize small family farms with chickens, goats, honey bees and more
BREAKING: CDC whistleblower confesses to MMR vaccine research fraud in historic public statement
Delicious
(NaturalNews) The constitutional indignities Americans continue to suffer at what can only be called soft tyranny continue to mount, the most recent of which is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that says police can now strip search for any reason - or no reason at all - when they're booking you into custody.

In a 5-4 ruling earlier this month, justices said police have the right to conduct strip searches even if they don't believe a suspect is carrying or hiding contraband.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy - who was joined by the high court's four other conservatives - said the Judicial branch was in no position to interfere with the judgment of police who were concerned that suspects could be hiding weapons, contraband or gang-related affiliations.

"Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed," Kennedy wrote, noting that some 13 million people annually are jailed.

Only, there's a problem: Strip search procedures conflict with statutes in 10 states which forbid the procedure. Also, the high court's ruling is at odds with federal policy as well. As if this wasn't enough, the American Bar Association filed a brief in the case noting that international human rights treaties also ban the procedure.

Unfortunately, no clear opinion before the high court case

Complicating the issue - or perpetuating it, actually - was the fact that lower federal courts were split on the issue, though the bulk of those rulings essentially prohibited the procedure, unless they were based on some reasonable suspicion that a strip search would turn up contraband or other relevant case-related evidence.

Moreover, the high court actually took a back-handed approach in its ruling. Rather than simply saying a strip search of all new arrestees was legal, justices said instead that the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment didn't actually prohibit them. Oh really?

The April 2 ruling gets even more baffling. According to The New York Times:

"The majority and dissenting opinions on Monday agreed that the search procedures the decision allowed - close visual inspection by a guard while naked - were more intrusive than being observed while showering, but did not involve bodily contact (our emphasis)."

Forgive us, but now the high court is basing its decision on which naked search procedure is... more invasive than the other?

Strip searches for big crimes - and really small crimes

In writing for the minority, Justice Steven Breyer said the strip searches allowed by the majority were "a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy," adding the procedure should be used rarely and only when police had a good reasonable suspicion of finding contraband or other damning evidence.

While some lower federal courts agreed, many others didn't. In fact, there is a trend among lower courts in Atlanta, San Francisco and Philadelphia, where rulings have supported strip searches for anyone being admitted to a jail - for just about any violation.

The New York Times said that, according to rulings from these lower courts, people can be strip searched for unpaid child support, driving without a license and violation of leash laws. In fact, citing examples from briefs filed in the Supreme Court case, Breyer wrote that some people had been subjected to "the humiliation of a visual strip search" after being arrested for a noisy muffler, riding a bicycle without a bell and failure to use a turn signal.

He even wrote that a nun was strip searched following her arrest for an anti-war protest (this example sounds like it could have been a TSA agent).

The court's case stemmed from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. He was in the passenger seat of his BMW when his wife, who was driving, was pulled over for speeding by a state trooper. Florence was arrested for an unpaid fine (though it was later discovered that the fine had been paid).

In the jail, he recalls being made to stand naked in front of a guard and asked to move various body parts, though he says the guard never touched him.

"Turn around," he says he was told. "Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks."

Sources for this article include:

http://mobile.nytimes.com

http://www.nj.com

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...

GET SHOW DETAILS
+ a FREE GIFT

Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of NaturalNews.com, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source: Alexa.com)

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.