On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Cameron Childress <camer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > >> Will 100% of jails adopt this as standard operating procedure? I don't >> know. I do know, however, that the Supreme Court has just said that it >> is perfectly acceptable for them to do so. That's the disturbing part. > > > The court said they can, if they want to. Which is giving the choice to > the jail/jurisdiction/etc. If you don't think a jail can be trusted with > this, why do you think a jail would adhere to "reasonable cause" or other > concepts brought up earlier in the thread.
Because "reasonable cause" is something you can get legal redress for. You can take an entity to court and show that they did not have "reasonable cause" and get a judgement against them and force them to follow real rules. That is important. As a result of this ruling, there is not a legal standard that they have to meet, hence no recourse. >> And I hate the routine degradation of our constitutional rights. The >> Supreme Court just said that it was perfectly acceptable for a man to >> get strip searched *twice* because they thought he hadn't paid a fine. >> > > No, not because he didn't pay a fine, but because he was sent to jail. Two > completely different things. The Supreme Court gave no ruling about wether > or not he should have been sent to jail in the first place, only what could > happen (at the jail's discretion) once he was sent there. You are misunderstanding my words. The legal offense on the dude's part was (supposedly) not paying a fine. Hence the warrant. The court ruled that even something as mild as not paying a fine (which is illegal) still will result in the same behavior at the jail as if the guy had been, say, picked up on a weapons and drugs charge. I admit that my phrasing "because they thought he hadn't paid a fine" was poorly worded. The "they" part was referring to the jail. The acceptable part is referring to the fact that they seem to think that it is perfectly fine to strip search someone who does not have any reasonable expectation of doing anything violent, of hiding anything, of introducing any contraband material and behavior that would render the situation a grave safety issue. >> So where is my extremist rhetoric, Cam? > > > Mainly in your emails, though you probably speak it out loud too. Though I > can't really say for sure, I don't think we've had a beer before. :) > I'm copying and pasting direct quotes from Justice Kennedy, so perhaps you're directing the extremist label at the wrong guy :) But am I strident in defense of personal liberty and my belief that we've shredded the 4th Amendment? Yes I am, in person and via email. No doubt about that. I wouldn't call my reaction extremist but others may disagree. I certainly don't apologize for it :) Cheers, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:349372 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
