Topic: Supreme Court upholds jail strip searches, including for minor offenses

[Pandora]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 ruling, saying that correctional officials have good reason to “perform thorough searches at intake for disease, gang affiliation, and contraband.”

“There is a substantial interest in preventing any new inmate, either of his own will or as a result of coercion, from putting all who live or work at these institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted to the general population,” Kennedy wrote.

More than 13 million people are admitted to jails each year, Kennedy wrote.

The Supreme Court’s decision continued a trend that began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of giving jailers more leeway in searching those picked up even for the most minor offenses, such as expired licenses or noisy mufflers.

At the same time, at least 10 states have forbidden strip searches without reasonable suspicion. And the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not subject those arrested for misdemeanor or civil contempt offenses to visual body-cavity searches without their consent or reasonable suspicion that they may be hiding contraband. They are kept from the general prison population.

Kennedy noted there are many definitions to the term “strip search” and said the decision relates to close visual inspection of a person’s body without touching.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with the outcome of the case but wrote separately to emphasize that the decision concerned only those admitted to the general population of a correctional facility. An exception to the rule might apply to those detained on minor charges and kept apart from the rest of the jail population, they said.

An attempt at "narrow tailoring"?  FAIL.

Kennedy’s ruling indicated that those subjected to a search but not placed in the general population might have a case. Justice Clarence Thomas did not join that part of the decision.

Breyer said the decision would legitimize searches conducted to harass or humiliate people for their political views, such as a nun who was strip-searched after being arrested in an antiwar protest. He mentioned instances in the briefs filed with the court in which individuals were searched for “such infractions as driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, or riding a bicycle without an audible bell.”

Breyer said that he agreed that jailers have a difficult job but that neither Kennedy’s opinion nor the briefs submitted to the court contained any examples in which “contraband was smuggled into the general jail population during intake that could not have been discovered if the jail was employing a reasonable suspicion standard.”

His dissent was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-jail-strip-searches----even-for-minor-offenses/2012/04/02/gIQAsZB4qS_story_1.html

[IronDioPriest]

I've never been in jail, outside of being held in a two-cell town jail for two hours while my wife drove to a nearby town with an ATM (yes, it was that long ago) to get $200 to bail me out on an outstanding traffic warrant. I was the only one in the jail. I stole the cops cigarettes and watched "Happy Days".

So that's my only experience. But I always assumed that in a real jail or prison situation, where one was being admitted into a "population", that a "bend over and spread your cheeks" strip-search was SOP.

[Libertas]

"Kennedy’s ruling indicated that those subjected to a search but not placed in the general population might have a case."

And we might have a constitution, a Bill of Rights and due process...maybe.

The routine misdemeanor offender is about to experience more invasive treatment.

Maybe those cases will get heard before too many are violated...maybe.

[charlesoakwood]

I've never been in jail, outside of being held in a two-cell town jail for two hours while my wife drove to a nearby town with an ATM (yes, it was that long ago) to get $200 to bail me out on an outstanding traffic warrant. I was the only one in the jail. I stole the cops cigarettes and watched "Happy Days".

So that's my only experience. But I always assumed that in a real jail or prison situation, where one was being admitted into a "population", that a "bend over and spread your cheeks" strip-search was SOP.

Me too, only no cigs or tv; however, there was a strip to the drawers.  And...my wife was in a meeting and I was not going to give the secretary a message and my other two calls were unanswered so... I was transferred to the county jail.  Oh man, be glad your wife answered the phone.

[Pandora]

I can see the need in certain cases and if there is a criminal record.  Not so much for bench warrants for unpaid traffic tickets or for the man arrested and jailed because the local authorities didn't like the way he finished the siding on his house.

A few years ago, Gunsmith and I discovered that the State of NJ had issued a bench warrant for his arrest for an unpaid parking ticket, citing a plate he'd long ago turned in, on a car he never owned, for a time when we were living in California.  North Carolina wouldn't renew his driver's license until we cleared up that little matter.  It took a month.  If we'd been visiting family in NJ at the time, he'd have been arrested.

I don't buy as an argument that the State "has a need" or "it's in the State's interest".  The State's interest is in upholding and protecting my rights.

[IronDioPriest]

I've never been in jail, outside of being held in a two-cell town jail for two hours while my wife drove to a nearby town with an ATM (yes, it was that long ago) to get $200 to bail me out on an outstanding traffic warrant. I was the only one in the jail. I stole the cops cigarettes and watched "Happy Days".

So that's my only experience. But I always assumed that in a real jail or prison situation, where one was being admitted into a "population", that a "bend over and spread your cheeks" strip-search was SOP.

Me too, only no cigs or tv; however, there was a strip to the drawers.  And...my wife was in a meeting and I was not going to give the secretary a message and my other two calls were unanswered so... I was transferred to the county jail.  Oh man, be glad your wife answered the phone.

She was actually with me. It's a pretty funny story that gives a glimpse into what an irresponsible little douchebag I was in 1989.

That year I got 9 moving violations - 4 of them in one day in two different traffic stops. It must have been something about police left-hand/right-hand ineptitude, the slowness of paper records, or something - because during this period I had an expired license, but somehow the cops never caught it. They'd pull me over, give me a ticket, and send me on my way. So somehow they didn't get around to suspending my license because technically I didn't have one. Finally, on the 9th ticket, the deputy realized I was driving with a license that was expired for almost a year, and checked for outstanding warrants, of which there were 8.

He took me right to jail and my wife followed me there, and he called the county in which the most recent warrant was issued while I listened. I could tell by the conversation that the other sheriff was telling him that I needed to be transported to that county and turned over to their custody. I freaked out, and blurted out "Can't I just pay the fine?" The deputy asked the other sheriff if that was an option, and by his, "uh huh" and "ok, so you need me to actually drive him up there today" I could tell the answer was "no". I could also tell that this deputy did NOT want to drive 3 hours to the other county, so I took a chance and blurted out, "Lemme talk to him!"

I was surprised when the deputy said, "He wants to talk to you," and then handed me the phone. I asked, "Can't I just pay the fine?" The sheriff on the phone said I could, so long as I paid cash and remained in custody until the fine was paid.

We hung up, and started figuring out with the deputy exactly what needed to happen. There was no ATM in their town. To his knowledge the closest one was an hour away. He called his buddy in the other town and got directions to the ATM for my wife. She left, I watched Happy Days, and two hours later, we were on our way. a few hundred dollars poorer.

Here's the funny part: Because of the horrendous year of violations and driving without insurance and with an expired license, I was sentenced to lose my license for one year. But I had no license - it was expired, for 11 months. Somehow the suspension could only be carried out on a valid driver's license, so the suspension began on the day the license expired. Result? A suspension of roughly 30 days.

Somehow I think that in this day and age of computerized records, such a thing could never happen again. I was always known by my friends both before and after this incident as one lucky SOB, and my brush with the law in 1989 solidified the legend.

I was taken into custody one other time when I was 17, but never jailed or placed in a cell. Holding room until mom and dad arrived was as close as I got. Violation? I was throwing firecrackers at people's feet on July 4th at the city fireworks gathering. My last "victim" pulled handcuffs from his belt and said, "come with me son."

[IronDioPriest]

I can see the need in certain cases and if there is a criminal record.  Not so much for bench warrants for unpaid traffic tickets or for the man arrested and jailed because the local authorities didn't like the way he finished the siding on his house.

A few years ago, Gunsmith and I discovered that the State of NJ had issued a bench warrant for his arrest for an unpaid parking ticket, citing a plate he'd long ago turned in, on a car he never owned, for a time when we were living in California.  North Carolina wouldn't renew his driver's license until we cleared up that little matter.  It took a month.  If we'd been visiting family in NJ at the time, he'd have been arrested.

I don't buy as an argument that the State "has a need" or "it's in the State's interest".  The State's interest is in upholding and protecting my rights.

I agree common sense should be applied, for sure. I do think though, that in a general sense, it can be assumed that if someone is being jailed in the general population, there is enough cause to make sure they possess no contraband. There's only one way to be sure...