Unreasonable search and seizure

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

The reason to prohibit unreasonable search and seizure is the tendency of the government to wield their power capriciously and without restraint.

Nothing illustrates that more than this case, in which the guy had ALREADY paid the fine and yet was detained, arrested, strip searched, and then held in jail for six days. That's horrible.

personally, the falsely arrested and jailed for multiple days leaps out as the bigger offence to liberty here.

I also don't see how you can treat prisoners differently based on whether or not they may be guilty of a significant crime. All prisoners get the same process.

They are both offenses to liberty to me. The fact that he was subject to such and unreasonable arrest and detention is just another reason why we should not be handing civil liberties over without judicial oversight.

Before 9/11 the courts routinely required warrants for strip searches.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[sfzombie 3]

i would have to disagree with you as these being offenses to liberty. as stated before, strip searches before throwing people in jail is not only legal, it's the smart thing to do. as for the real issue here, why would anybody in their right mind wait "years" before clearing their name? i know that the first time i got pulled over and detained for something i'd already paid, i would be carrying my ass to the courthouse to get it taken care of. and carrying paperwork to show that you'd taken care of a fine??? for years??? if i was a cop, my first reaction would be, "yeah, right." sounds like someone digging for a lawsuit to me...

http://kitswv.com

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

i would have to disagree with you as these being offenses to liberty. as stated before, strip searches before throwing people in jail is not only legal, it's the smart thing to do. as for the real issue here, why would anybody in their right mind wait "years" before clearing their name? i know that the first time i got pulled over and detained for something i'd already paid, i would be carrying my ass to the courthouse to get it taken care of. and carrying paperwork to show that you'd taken care of a fine??? for years??? if i was a cop, my first reaction would be, "yeah, right." sounds like someone digging for a lawsuit to me...

Albert Florence had paid his fine and had paperwork with him to prove that he had paid it. What would you have had him to do?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 2,124]

Quote

Quote

Quote

personally, the falsely arrested and jailed for multiple days leaps out as the bigger offence to liberty here.

I also don't see how you can treat prisoners differently based on whether or not they may be guilty of a significant crime. All prisoners get the same process.

The guy in question, however, has not been found guilty of ANY crime. Nor, apparently, was there any probable cause to believe he possessed contraband. It was just "administrative convenience".

again, that (not having been convicted yet) is irrelevant. If you believe prisoners may smuggle in objects that present a risk in the prison, you search for it. If you believe this is wrong for this guy, then its wrong for all prisoners, and again his false arrest/imprisonment is an unimportant detail.

Trying to combine the two issues seems like a shameless attempt to curry favor for the issue due to his innocence rather than via the meaning and protection of the 4th amendment.

The (non) "offense" for which he was arrested is NOT even a crime in NJ. Even if he had not paid the fine (which he had paid, and had proof) he STILL wouldn't be a criminal. There was absolutely NO reason to believe he had contraband except, apparently, his skin color.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

personally, the falsely arrested and jailed for multiple days leaps out as the bigger offence to liberty here.

I also don't see how you can treat prisoners differently based on whether or not they may be guilty of a significant crime. All prisoners get the same process.

The guy in question, however, has not been found guilty of ANY crime. Nor, apparently, was there any probable cause to believe he possessed contraband. It was just "administrative convenience".

again, that (not having been convicted yet) is irrelevant. If you believe prisoners may smuggle in objects that present a risk in the prison, you search for it. If you believe this is wrong for this guy, then its wrong for all prisoners, and again his false arrest/imprisonment is an unimportant detail.

Trying to combine the two issues seems like a shameless attempt to curry favor for the issue due to his innocence rather than via the meaning and protection of the 4th amendment.

The (non) "offense" for which he was arrested is NOT even a crime in NJ. Even if he had not paid the fine (which he had paid, and had proof) he STILL wouldn't be a criminal. There was absolutely NO reason to believe he had contraband except, apparently, his skin color.

John, Kelp is right in observing that two issues are being combined when they ought to be kept more or less separate. If a person is wrongfully arrested, that's a police and prosecution issue, and quite possibly a civil rights issue. But - once arrested - whether to have a uniform policy for searching new jail prisoners upon admission is a prison administration issue. If you think the likelihood a new jail prisoner will have contraband secreted up his/her sundry orifi varies much with the severity of the offense, you're kidding yourself.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

John, Kelp is right in observing that two issues are being combined when they ought to be kept more or less separate. If a person is wrongfully arrested, that's a police and prosecution issue, and quite possibly a civil rights issue. But - once arrested - whether to have a uniform policy for searching new jail prisoners upon admission is a prison administration issue. If you think the likelihood a new jail prisoner will have contraband secreted up his/her sundry orifi varies much with the severity of the offense, you're kidding yourself.

Except as a practical matter, the fact that the police were so willing and capable of violating his rights in the first instance should give anybody cause to worry about handing over more power to the police in the second instance. At the very least, requiring a warrant before a strip search (as was routinely required before 9/11) would allow him to get in front of a judge sooner.

What happened to him in an abomination. I hope he wins a huge lawsuit against the police department and town. Personally I think the police should be liable for false imprisonment charges, although I know that will never happen. I'm not sure why he did not raise a civil rights claim.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 2,124]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

personally, the falsely arrested and jailed for multiple days leaps out as the bigger offence to liberty here.

I also don't see how you can treat prisoners differently based on whether or not they may be guilty of a significant crime. All prisoners get the same process.

The guy in question, however, has not been found guilty of ANY crime. Nor, apparently, was there any probable cause to believe he possessed contraband. It was just "administrative convenience".

again, that (not having been convicted yet) is irrelevant. If you believe prisoners may smuggle in objects that present a risk in the prison, you search for it. If you believe this is wrong for this guy, then its wrong for all prisoners, and again his false arrest/imprisonment is an unimportant detail.

Trying to combine the two issues seems like a shameless attempt to curry favor for the issue due to his innocence rather than via the meaning and protection of the 4th amendment.

The (non) "offense" for which he was arrested is NOT even a crime in NJ. Even if he had not paid the fine (which he had paid, and had proof) he STILL wouldn't be a criminal. There was absolutely NO reason to believe he had contraband except, apparently, his skin color.

John, Kelp is right in observing that two issues are being combined when they ought to be kept more or less separate. If a person is wrongfully arrested, that's a police and prosecution issue, and quite possibly a civil rights issue. But - once arrested - whether to have a uniform policy for searching new jail prisoners upon admission is a prison administration issue. If you think the likelihood a new jail prisoner will have contraband secreted up his/her sundry orifi varies much with the severity of the offense, you're kidding yourself.

1. There was NO OFFENCE. There was no crime.

2. I dispute that adminstrative convenience represents probable cause of anything.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

I agree with both of you on principle and policy. But the parties who should bear that burden are the police, the prosecutors, and the local government. But the jail administrators can't be burdened with the quasi-judicial function of second-guessing whether the cops had valid probable cause to arrest every prisoner that gets admitted to their jail, or for that matter everyone who gets admitted for only non-felonies. Admissions practices must be uniform for all new prisoners; and that's s not a matter of "convenience"; it's a matter of necessity.

FWIW: I am at heart primarily a criminal defense and prisoner-side civil rights attorney (i.e., when I practice in those areas), so I don't say this stuff lightly.

[mnealtx 0]

Well-said, Andy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,124]

Quote

I agree with both of you on principle and policy. But the parties who should bear that burden are the police, the prosecutors, and the local government. But the jail administrators can't be burdened with the quasi-judicial function of second-guessing whether the cops had valid probable cause to arrest every prisoner that gets admitted to their jail, or for that matter everyone who gets admitted for only non-felonies. Admissions practices must be uniform for all new prisoners; and that's s not a matter of "convenience"; it's a matter of necessity.

.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What is the "probable cause". Necessity is not probable cause, neither is security.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I agree with both of you on principle and policy. But the parties who should bear that burden are the police, the prosecutors, and the local government. But the jail administrators can't be burdened with the quasi-judicial function of second-guessing whether the cops had valid probable cause to arrest every prisoner that gets admitted to their jail, or for that matter everyone who gets admitted for only non-felonies. Admissions practices must be uniform for all new prisoners; and that's s not a matter of "convenience"; it's a matter of necessity. .

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What is the "probable cause". Necessity is not probable cause, neither is security.

Quite simply, once you're under arrest, some (not all) of your basic constitutional rights are suspended. The most obvious one, of course, is your right to come and go as you please, since you're literally under physical restraint. In the same regard, when you're under arrest, your right to be secure from search except with probable cause is severely restricted; and yes, it's out of necessity: your jailers must be permitted to take the basic steps necessary to maintain your physical custody and the security and order of the facility.

Alternatively, it can be said that probable cause to search a prisoner's person and effects - for the limited purpose of security of the facility - is supplied by the very fact of his arrest. The legality of the person's arrest is not the jailer's concern; maintaining necessary security is.

The exigencies of custodial detention often (not always) require immediacy of action, such that obtaining a judicial warrant is sometimes impossible if the security of the jail is to be maintained. For example, most judges have held that jails/prisons are generally not required to obtain a judicial warrant before searching a prisoner's person, effects or cell for contraband.

[kallend 2,124]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with both of you on principle and policy. But the parties who should bear that burden are the police, the prosecutors, and the local government. But the jail administrators can't be burdened with the quasi-judicial function of second-guessing whether the cops had valid probable cause to arrest every prisoner that gets admitted to their jail, or for that matter everyone who gets admitted for only non-felonies. Admissions practices must be uniform for all new prisoners; and that's s not a matter of "convenience"; it's a matter of necessity. .

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What is the "probable cause". Necessity is not probable cause, neither is security.

Quite simply, once you're under arrest, some (not all) of your basic constitutional rights are suspended.

That's a crock and you know it.

Quote

The most obvious one, of course, is your right to come and go as you please, since you're literally under physical restraint. In the same regard, when you're under arrest, your right to be secure from search except with probable cause is severely restricted; and yes, it's out of necessity: your jailers must be permitted to take the basic steps necessary to maintain your physical custody and the security and order of the facility.

Necessity is NOT probable cause.

Quote

Alternatively, it can be said that probable cause to search a prisoner's person and effects - for the limited purpose of security of the facility - is supplied by the very fact of his arrest. .

That is not "probable cause" by any interpretation of the English language. That is just for the convenience of the state.

Basically you're saying that when the state finds it CONVENIENT, it can suspend the rights of the people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[deltron80 0]

I figure since the federal, state, and local government can now freely monitor my phone and computer without probable cause, and now they're planning to have 24/7 drone monitoring of the entire country, if they also want to look at my asshole to make me feel like less of a human, that's fine.

*edited for spelling

[Andy9o8 2]

I'm sorry, John, but your responses to my points are simply not correct. I stand by my posts, for the reasons already stated, not to be obstinate, but because they are correct.

[kelpdiver 2]

Kallend: you've made of habit of stating that whatever the SC says is what is reality. They've made clear statements in this case and overall. Yet you're saying they're wrong, now.

FTR, I don't accept that any SC decision is 100% correct. I didn't accept McCain-Feingold either.

In this particular case, I will offer up my belief that if I'm imprisoned improperly, I want to be protected against other, actually criminal, inmates from being able to smuggle in weapons that put me at greater risk. Unless the reality is that prison violence is just movie nonsense (and i see little reason to believe this is true), there is a need to protect inmates.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

In this particular case, I will offer up my belief that if I'm imprisoned improperly, I want to be protected against other, actually criminal, inmates from being able to smuggle in weapons that put me at greater risk. Unless the reality is that prison violence is just movie nonsense (and i see little reason to believe this is true), there is a need to protect inmates.

I don't see why they have to call it a strip search...Many county jails just tell their inmates to strip down for delousing before entering general pop...they spay the inmate's hair, balls and butt crack and then toss them their county oranges...I'm sure this process is thorough enough to find a shank shoved up someone's ass...it's probably even more humiliating, but at least it's not violating any rights...lol

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

...they spay the inmate's ... balls ...

I'd say that's a bit excessive!

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Coreece 190]

sorry...I meant "spray."

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Oh I know, it's just funnier the other way.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 2,124]

Quote

I'm sorry, John, but your responses to my points are simply not correct. I stand by my posts, for the reasons already stated, not to be obstinate, but because they are correct.

I'm sure you do, but I find your explanation a remarkable twisting of the English language.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I'm sorry, John, but your responses to my points are simply not correct. I stand by my posts, for the reasons already stated, not to be obstinate, but because they are correct.

I'm sure you do, but I find your explanation a remarkable twisting of the English language.

Well, then I'm just going to have to learn to live with that.

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

The question posed in this case was, according to the dissent, whether the Fourth Amendment permits a suspicionless "strip searches of those arrestees
entering a jail’s general population."

The Majority found that the search was reasonable in this case because there was no alternative but to put the guy in jail with the general population but limited the opinion to this case.

I would have dissented. But the opinion isn't too broad. Like it or not, the guy did have a warrant, the validity of which isn't something that the police can determine. I think Kennedy's opinion was based more upon not creating a judicial mess than actually on the Constitutionality. Which crimes are serious enough for strip searches and which are not is an issue that Kennedy did not want to deal with now or in the future.

Is an "unpaid" fine (not even defined as a crime)probable cause for a strip search?

I agree with the Professor on this one. I think this is a disregard of civil liberties. As a republican, I would be more than pissed off if I was required to undergo a strip search over an unpaid fine.

Here is a suggestion.... Run admitted persons through a body scanner like we have at an airport if correctional personnel are so concerned about contraband.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

As a republican, I would be more than pissed off if I was required to undergo a strip search over an unpaid fine.

Why do you support the strip searching of Democrats?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

As a republican, I would be more than pissed off if I was required to undergo a strip search over an unpaid fine.

Why do you support the strip searching of Democrats?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Quote

As a republican, I would be more than pissed off if I was required to undergo a strip search over an unpaid fine.

Why do you support the strip searching of Democrats?

Hey.... now that's a good idea!

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!