The court also noted that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was initially arrested for not having a license plate on his car and that one of the 9/11 terrorists was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.

and did either of those guys have bombs strapped to their inner-thighs at the time? wtf does that have to do with the constitutionality of strip-searching people who may or may not have outstanding fines?

You can tell someone is a criminal by looking at their dick.

Land of the free....

thomps: The court also noted that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was initially arrested for not having a license plate on his car and that one of the 9/11 terrorists was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.

and did either of those guys have bombs strapped to their inner-thighs at the time? wtf does that have to do with the constitutionality of strip-searching people who may or may not have outstanding fines?

So here's what's funny about your argument: it completely misses the point.

The defense here had argued that people who are arrested for minor traffic offenses and the like shouldn't be presumed dangerous. The court responded by saying "there's no reason to presume either way, and you're presuming as the defense that such people aren't dangerous."

In other words, the court didn't use this to justify their ruling; they just responded to an inane defense.

The practical rationale for the strip search is simple: if you're going to be held in state facilities, the state has a valid interest in ensuring that you don't have a weapon. So long as the detention itself is legal, there's no reason a strip search isn't acceptable.

i haven't read the decision, but if the article correctly represents it, these are now valid reasons for ignoring constitutional freedoms:
- poor administrative infrastructure makes it difficult to find paperwork
- anyone could be a terrorist, so we must assume that everyone is

mattharvest: The practical rationale for the strip search is simple: if you're going to be held in state facilities, the state has a valid interest in ensuring that you don't have a weapon. So long as the detention itself is legal, there's no reason a strip search isn't acceptable.

so the burden has been lowered from "reasonable suspicion" to "whenever we feel like it so long as you are in custody?"

thomps: The court also noted that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was initially arrested for not having a license plate on his car and that one of the 9/11 terrorists was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.

and did either of those guys have bombs strapped to their inner-thighs at the time? wtf does that have to do with the constitutionality of strip-searching people who may or may not have outstanding fines?

It would have been cool to see them naked.

sweetmelissa31: thomps: The court also noted that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was initially arrested for not having a license plate on his car and that one of the 9/11 terrorists was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.

and did either of those guys have bombs strapped to their inner-thighs at the time? wtf does that have to do with the constitutionality of strip-searching people who may or may not have outstanding fines?

It would have been cool to see them naked.

yeah, maybe get some pics too. it's always cool to see nudies of celebrities from before they blew up.

Paranoia-': Welcome to 9/12/01.

AKA "The Day the Terrorists Won."

so if you happen to be near an OWS protest, even if you aren't a protester, and the cops pick up everyone in a 150 meter radius of a park or something, you can all expect to be strip searched. Because hey - f*ck you, SCOTUS said the cops can do it.

isn't that wonderful? don't you feel great knowing that if a cop decides to pull you over for a 'traffic stop' and decides you need to be arrested, that you can end your day being strip searched? how wonderful a society we're becoming!

thomps: mattharvest: The practical rationale for the strip search is simple: if you're going to be held in state facilities, the state has a valid interest in ensuring that you don't have a weapon. So long as the detention itself is legal, there's no reason a strip search isn't acceptable.

so the burden has been lowered from "reasonable suspicion" to "whenever we feel like it so long as you are in custody?"

yes.

Easy for the justices to say, who'd want to strip search them?

this is the part that should bother everyone:

Albert Florence was arrested by a state trooper because of an error in the state's records that mistakenly said he was wanted on an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine. Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.

Florence was held for a week in two different jails before the charges were dropped.

so the cop f*cked up and arrested the wrong person. NOT ONLY did the cop arrest the wrong person, but he arrested the wrong person for something that isn't a crime.

let me say that again: the cops arrested the wrong person...for something that isn't a crime.

one more time so that this sinks in: the cops...arrested the wrong person....for something that isn't a crime.

why are you not outraged at this? why the F*CK do people let their police forces get away with this sort of thing? it took a WEEK for an innocent man to get out of jail after 1. he was wrongly arrested for 2. something that ISN'T EVEN A CRIME!!!!!

Hope you all enjoy your strip searches. The cops will be doing it just for kicks now that SCOTUS gave them the go-ahead.

thomps: mattharvest: The practical rationale for the strip search is simple: if you're going to be held in state facilities, the state has a valid interest in ensuring that you don't have a weapon. So long as the detention itself is legal, there's no reason a strip search isn't acceptable.

so the burden has been lowered from "reasonable suspicion" to "whenever we feel like it so long as you are in custody?"

Not from my reading; the burden when you are locked up has been kept at what it already was. You're implying, falsely, that they needed to establish some reasonable suspicion to strip-search a prisoner. Far from it, it's always been presumed that once you're being held as a prisoner - even a temporary one - in State facilities, you can be searched. The security of the facility takes precedence, because there's no other way to ensure the safety of the staff and inmates.

This is very similar to the ability of the jail to uniformly censor and search incoming and outgoing mail, even if it is addressed as "legal". The need to ensure that no contraband enters the facility outweighs the privacy interest an inmate might have in his 'legal' mail.

Marcus Aurelius: Hope you all enjoy your strip searches. The cops will be doing it just for kicks now that SCOTUS gave them the go-ahead.

not only that but if you piss off a cop during a traffic stop (by doing something like....refusing to consent to a search) then you can expect to be arrested for resisting arrest, then 'lost in the system' for a week or so while being shuffled between jails and being repeatedly strip searched. And it's entire legal.

Marcus Aurelius: Hope you all enjoy your strip searches. The cops will be doing it just for kicks now that SCOTUS gave them the go-ahead.

i hope you're not implying that police tend to push the limits of vaguely defined powers to the point of abuse. because that kind of talk will get you tasered.

Weaver95: let me say that again: the cops arrested the wrong person...for something that isn't a crime.

You're not reading it correctly: though the warrant was in error, it was nonetheless a warrant in the system. The trooper had no reason to believe he shouldn't enforce the warrant.

That's why you're not seeing a lawsuit against the trooper: he acted lawfully within his duties.

The real problem here is that no one seems to have been able to figure out that the initial warrant was invalid. It's unclear from this reporting why that happened.

mattharvest: Weaver95: let me say that again: the cops arrested the wrong person...for something that isn't a crime.

You're not reading it correctly: though the warrant was in error, it was nonetheless a warrant in the system. The trooper had no reason to believe he shouldn't enforce the warrant.

That's why you're not seeing a lawsuit against the trooper: he acted lawfully within his duties.

The real problem here is that no one seems to have been able to figure out that the initial warrant was invalid. It's unclear from this reporting why that happened.

But it WASN'T EVEN A CRIME!!!! the cop had to have known that the warrant was bogus. so either he's lazy, stupid or just didn't give a damn. into the system ya go!

Weaver95: mattharvest: Weaver95: let me say that again: the cops arrested the wrong person...for something that isn't a crime.

You're not reading it correctly: though the warrant was in error, it was nonetheless a warrant in the system. The trooper had no reason to believe he shouldn't enforce the warrant.

That's why you're not seeing a lawsuit against the trooper: he acted lawfully within his duties.

The real problem here is that no one seems to have been able to figure out that the initial warrant was invalid. It's unclear from this reporting why that happened.

But it WASN'T EVEN A CRIME!!!! the cop had to have known that the warrant was bogus. so either he's lazy, stupid or just didn't give a damn. into the system ya go!

No, that's not the case.

(a) If a warrant is in the system, the cops are instructed in most jurisdictions to presume they're valid. They're not supposed to wonder about their validity because if they did, then they would be accused of being discriminatory (e.g. if person X is picked up but person Y isn't, how do you know they weren't discriminating against X?).

(b) The case was not ever argued based on the validity of the warrant. The ONLY issue here was whether the jail procedures were legal, i.e. the jail's policies of searching whomever was brought in. No jail in existence that I'm aware of is responsible for determining the validity of the arrest that led to their custody.

(c) The issue you're complaining of - officers serving warrants without inquiring into their background - is so "not new" that it's not even being discussed here. I don't understand your rage, since you're acting as if something has changed. With regards to that issue, today is the same as the last few decades. Why are you suddenly angry about it today, since today's ruling had nothing to do with it?

Weaver95: But it WASN'T EVEN A CRIME!!!! the cop had to have known that the warrant was bogus. so either he's lazy, stupid or just didn't give a damn. into the system ya go!

I got arrested for making a sandwich once.

Weaver95: But it WASN'T EVEN A CRIME!!!! the cop had to have known that the warrant was bogus. so either he's lazy, stupid or just didn't give a damn. into the system ya go!

By the way, you're actually objectively wrong here (though it's not your fault, it's the reporting).

It isn't a crime in NJ to fail to pay a fine; that's true. That's not what his warrant was for. His warrant was a bench warrant.

Here's the factual summary from the SCOTUS opinion:
In 1998, seven years before the incidents at issue, petitioner Albert Florence was arrested after fleeing frompolice officers in Essex County, New Jersey. He was charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two lesseroffenses and was sentenced to pay a fine in monthly installments. In 2003, after he fell behind on his paymentsand failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a benchwarrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later; but, for some unexplained reason, the warrant remained in a statewide computer database.

So, he was charged with - and convicted of - two jailable offenses. He then failed to appear at an enforcement hearing. That, contrary to the article, is a jailable offense. It is a violation of his probation, and it is contempt of court, either one of which would validly justify a warrant.

He paid the balance later, but the warrant was never quashed.

So contrary to your righteous rage, if the officer looked at why the warrant was issued it would read as the defendant having failed to appear at a probation hearing. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for the officer to have presumed the warrant to be invalid.

What are you angry about again?

For those who want to make a reasonable analysis, I'd recommend reading the opinion instead of the flawed reporting (which cannot even get the basis of the warrant correct).

Link (new window)

mattharvest: For those who want to make a reasonable analysis, I'd recommend reading the opinion instead of the flawed reporting (which cannot even get the basis of the warrant correct).

Link (new window)

*sigh*

this is still a f*cked up situation.

mattharvest: thomps: mattharvest: The practical rationale for the strip search is simple: if you're going to be held in state facilities, the state has a valid interest in ensuring that you don't have a weapon. So long as the detention itself is legal, there's no reason a strip search isn't acceptable.

so the burden has been lowered from "reasonable suspicion" to "whenever we feel like it so long as you are in custody?"

Not from my reading; the burden when you are locked up has been kept at what it already was. You're implying, falsely, that they needed to establish some reasonable suspicion to strip-search a prisoner. Far from it, it's always been presumed that once you're being held as a prisoner - even a temporary one - in State facilities, you can be searched. The security of the facility takes precedence, because there's no other way to ensure the safety of the staff and inmates.

This is very similar to the ability of the jail to uniformly censor and search incoming and outgoing mail, even if it is addressed as "legal". The need to ensure that no contraband enters the facility outweighs the privacy interest an inmate might have in his 'legal' mail.

hm, my understanding was that the previous rulings made reasonable suspicion the burden in cases of minor, non-violent/drug-related offenses.

Thank god I'm already naked.

mattharvest: The defense here had argued that people who are arrested for minor traffic offenses and the like shouldn't be presumed dangerous. The court responded by saying "there's no reason to presume either way, and you're presuming as the defense that such people aren't dangerous."

So, presumed guilty until proven innocent...

mattharvest: For those who want to make a reasonable analysis, I'd recommend reading the opinion instead of the flawed reporting (which cannot even get the basis of the warrant correct).

Link (new window)

That includes too many facts. I'd rather spew hatred toward Scalia, Alito, and their dog Thomas without superfluous information getting in the way.

mattharvest: Weaver95: mattharvest: Weaver95: let me say that again: the cops arrested the wrong person...for something that isn't a crime.

You're not reading it correctly: though the warrant was in error, it was nonetheless a warrant in the system. The trooper had no reason to believe he shouldn't enforce the warrant.

That's why you're not seeing a lawsuit against the trooper: he acted lawfully within his duties.

The real problem here is that no one seems to have been able to figure out that the initial warrant was invalid. It's unclear from this reporting why that happened.

But it WASN'T EVEN A CRIME!!!! the cop had to have known that the warrant was bogus. so either he's lazy, stupid or just didn't give a damn. into the system ya go!

No, that's not the case.

(a) If a warrant is in the system, the cops are instructed in most jurisdictions to presume they're valid. They're not supposed to wonder about their validity because if they did, then they would be accused of being discriminatory (e.g. if person X is picked up but person Y isn't, how do you know they weren't discriminating against X?).

(b) The case was not ever argued based on the validity of the warrant. The ONLY issue here was whether the jail procedures were legal, i.e. the jail's policies of searching whomever was brought in. No jail in existence that I'm aware of is responsible for determining the validity of the arrest that led to their custody.

(c) The issue you're complaining of - officers serving warrants without inquiring into their background - is so "not new" that it's not even being discussed here. I don't understand your rage, since you're acting as if something has changed. With regards to that issue, today is the same as the last few decades. Why are you suddenly angry about it today, since today's ruling had nothing to do with it?

except that, if i'm on the job and I see something come across the desk that I *know* is wrong (bad code, faulty procedure) but all the right forms are filled in and everything looks proper...yet I know for a fact is wrong...then I'm not going to process that request. i'll put a hold on it and clarify the situation before proceeding. that's called 'doing a good job'.

are you saying that cops are literally forbidden from using their judgement when it comes to seeing something they know is due to bad paperwork? cop sees a warrant for say...illegal sandwich making. he's going to arrest you for illegal sandwich making even tho he KNOWS it's a paperwork error? if that's the sort of society we're living in then we've got a MUCH bigger problem than I thought.

Phil Moskowitz: "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.

Your country is off the farking rails.

yeah. thanks for reminding me.

thomps: hm, my understanding was that the previous rulings made reasonable suspicion the burden in cases of minor, non-violent/drug-related offenses.

Some Circuits had introduced this of late (hence the circuit split that lead to SCOTUS taking it up), but the default has never required that.

You're thinking of mere police custody, e.g. when the cops pick you up as a possible suspect and hold you in their facility. This case is about when you're actually released to a federal jail and held pending presentment for trial.

At the same time?

Weaver95: are you saying that cops are literally forbidden from using their judgement when it comes to seeing something they know is due to bad paperwork? cop sees a warrant for say...illegal sandwich making. he's going to arrest you for illegal sandwich making even tho he KNOWS it's a paperwork error? if that's the sort of society we're living in then we've got a MUCH bigger problem than I thought.

You're engaging in a strawman. All of the warrant systems I'm aware of - i.e. all of the ones that connect to NCIC, the national database for these things - require that you actual identify the crime which occured, e.g. by statute. In other words, you couldn't enter a warrant for a non-existent offense.

Moreover, your hypothetical is completely divorced from this situation: here, the warrant was quite clearly for failure to appear at a probation hearing for a violent crime involving a weapon.

Finally, assume we took your stance, and police were instructed to evaluate each bench warrant for validity. When, inevitably, an officer uses this discretion in a way that (albeit unintentionally) leads to a person remaining on the streets and that person commits another crime of violence, what should happen? Is the police officer responsible? The police themselves? The State?

You do not want police having that sort of discretion, because they are not trained to do it. The question you're asking - of the validity of a bench warrant - is a lawyer's task, not a cop's.