I'l admit that this is interesting information, though I'd need more info
for it to change my mind. The most important information I'd want would be
comparable stats for a jurisdiction that did *not* conduct blanket strip
searches. We can't know if the searches prevented contraband without
someth
PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
matter how small
Also, in NJ, Sheriff's Officers are not patrol officers. They are mostly
used to serve warrants, operate 911 services, guard the county courthouse
and/or man the county prison.
I kn
;> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:00 PM
>> To: cf-community
>> Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense,
>> no matter how small
>>
>>
>> It seems you may have an idea of the location the searches took place
>> that migh
Very well summed up...*clapping*
-Original Message-
From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 6:57 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
matter how small
Ok, so here is my take on this.
1. A
son [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:41 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
> matter how small
>
>
> Can you look at the specifics of this case, and please explain to me how
> this fits i
> I know this is different than elsewhere (including where I live now)
> but this incident occurred in NJ, so I think its important to get the
> details correct.
Different from elsewhere is right... they don't even let you pump your own gas.
-Justin
inal Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:00 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
> matter how small
>
>
> It seems you may have an idea of the location t
n
>> the offense and who arrested you. Even if a city cop arrests you, after
>> they process you, you may be sent to county to await a bond hearing.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:00
> 3. Our corrections system is broken. The fact that some of you so
> readily accept contractors on prison staffs is unusual to me.
> Outsourcing government control is a horrible idea in my view.
Just to clarify, when I first mentioned contractors I wasn't referring
to contracted jail staff, I
ginal Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:00 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
> matter how small
>
>
> It seems you may have an idea of the location the se
Ok, so here is my take on this.
1. A holding cell is not a jail is not a prison, and each should have
rules catered to it's specific environment. Authorizing strip searches for
failure to follow a leash law, or speeding, is excissive.
2. the guy shouldn't have been arrested, the fine was paid
It seems they are basing the decision on a few earlier decisions:
"...the Ninth Circuit ruled in United States. v. Aukai that "airport
screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally
reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of
a general regulat
> Maybe they can make use of body scanners instead...if
> they are useful in airports, why not jails...
Some are. Collier County, Florida, (Naples) for example began using a
type of body scanner about a year ago (the first in Florida). Pasco
County (Tampa Bay area) is using one now as well. Ot
I'm not familiar with the 1978 decision, so maybe that's why I don't see
the slippery slope. I'm willing to believe in it -- why not, it's
everywhere else. I am just not sure this is the best example of it, because
once the system has you in custody it is responsible both for your safety
and for p
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Justin Scott wrote:
>
>> I'll let the lead author of the dissent, Justice Breyer, in this case
>> take out your argument:
>
> If you take the 1 in 23,000 figure and use it as an average over the
> claimed 13 million people who pass through intake every year, that
>
No, I wasn't proposing an alternate procedure. I was pointing out the
slippery slope based on precedent.
First, Supreme Court says in 1978 that you can strip search inmates
after visits from outsiders because they could be smuggling in drugs
or weapons. But they placed careful limits on when peop
And a meteor might hit you in the head too...
-Original Message-
From: Justin Scott [mailto:leviat...@darktech.org]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:32 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
matter how small
> That's why t
No, that is stating an extreme example to point out ridiculous and illogical
this is.
-Original Message-
From: Cameron Childress [mailto:camer...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:21 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
Maybe they can make use of body scanners instead...if they are useful in
airports, why not jails...
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:40 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense
Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
matter how small
It seems you may have an idea of the location the searches took place that
might not be accurate (and this explanation may not even matter - but I am
going to try anyway).
These strip searches were not done in a local police depar
ay, April 02, 2012 12:59 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
> matter how small
>
>
> I think the biggest issue was that he was arrested in the first place.
>
> After that, he was treated like any other prisoner.
&g
> I'll let the lead author of the dissent, Justice Breyer, in this case
> take out your argument:
If you take the 1 in 23,000 figure and use it as an average over the
claimed 13 million people who pass through intake every year, that
works out to about 565 instances of contraband found each year,
judge...no
you shouldn't be treated the same as a murderer or a rapist or some gang
banger.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:59 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
Welcome to the fascist police state...
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Milo Johnson [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:41 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: Strip searches just fine for any offense, no
matter how small
Can you look at the specifics
er, where the man was held
stupid auto-complete
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Dana wrote:
> I'm saying that if I understand you, your proposed alternate procedure
> would be to keep someone like this out of the general population, in a cell
> by himself. And that that's great, and would in f
I'm saying that if I understand you, your proposed alternate procedure
would be to keep someone like this out of the general population, in a cell
by himself. And that that's great, and would in fact be a good idea if
there were clear-cut criteria for doing so, except for one thing. As a
rule, jai
I'm not sure what you're saying, Dana.
Judah
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> ok, but you're arguing for keeping people in individual cells, which is
> fine for a few hours maybe, but impractical for the week this man was
> incarcerated, not to mention that it would itself draw c
ok, but you're arguing for keeping people in individual cells, which is
fine for a few hours maybe, but impractical for the week this man was
incarcerated, not to mention that it would itself draw complaints of
inhumane treatment.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I'll le
I'll let the lead author of the dissent, Justice Breyer, in this case
take out your argument:
The New York Federal District Court, to which I have referred,
conducted a study of 23,000 persons admitted to the Orange County
correctional facility between 1999 and 2003.These 23,000 persons
unde
> It is a hypothetical.
I think that's what you're missing. It's not hypothetical. Weapons
and drugs are smuggled into county jails every day and these things
actually do happen on a fairly regular basis. That's like stating
that cars shouldn't be required to have emergency flashers because
it
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> It is a hypothetical.
>
> You are saying that routine strip searching is justified because it is
> possible that such procedures could prevent a hypothetical attack that
> you outline. It's a justification of an incursion upon personal
> li
Your hypothetical argument would hold water if the strip searches did
not find any contraband.
I have 2 cousins who are corrections officers for a state prison and
the list of things they have told me are found during the 'strip
search' is quite long (and I will readily admit this may be
'anecdot
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> Because it's not a hypothetical? Because people are stabbed with smuggled
> weapons in jails all the time? Because it actually happens, and isn't just
> an imaginary boogyman?
It is a hypothetical.
You are saying that routine strip se
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Jail would be even safer for the inmates and the guards if we kept
> every person naked in solitary confinement. If safety and treating
> people equally are the only criteria that matters, why not support
> that move?
...oh, and because th
I assume this would fall under the category of equal treatment. If
you strip search everyone who is placed into a cell, then no one can
claim they were profiled or treated differently.
It's not like they are being water boarded.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> What is
My earlier point was that in NJ (as far as I know) there are no
'local' jails with a 'general population' - they are just not big
enough. Even in Newark, the police stations do not have a 'cell block'
- hence no 'general population'. Typically those who will have an
extended stay are processed to
> That's why they have pat downs and metal detectors.
Neither of which will find that baggie of drugs shoved into your
bodily cavities. Smuggling drugs into the jails is a HUGE problem
that the jails constantly have to contend with.
> If there is reason to believe that someone might be secretin
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>> However Once you're in jail, all bets are off.
>>
>> And that's where I disagree. You still have rights after you are
>> arrested. That is when they are most important, in fact.
>
> There is a difference between 'being arrested' and being
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> You're welcome, I knew you'd say that :)
>
Because, even though you use it, you recognize the rhetoric.
> So, please explain for the class what makes your hypothetical not
> extreme versus mine?
Because it's not a hypothetical? Because
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>> Jail would be even safer for the inmates and the guards if we kept
>> every person naked in solitary confinement. If safety and treating
>> people equally are the only criteria
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>>
>> I think it's fair to say "not paying a fine should not land you in jail".
>> IMO there are ***LOTS*** of things that will land you in jail that should
>> not. But that's not
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Jail would be even safer for the inmates and the guards if we kept
> every person naked in solitary confinement. If safety and treating
> people equally are the only criteria that matters, why not support
> that move?
Because that would be
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>> What is the likelihood that someone picked up at a routine traffic
>> stop with a warrant for failing to pay a fine will be carrying a shiv
>> that won't be picked up by metal d
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Scott, the ruling makes no distinction between different types of
> jails. Further more, look at the actual person involved in the case.
> He had an outstanding (though incorrect) warrant for a failure to pay
> a fine. He had not been broug
Judah, are you saying that nobody should be strip searched when they go to
jail? Because, as fervently as I would like to avoid this happening to me,
I think I disagree. Jail is a dangerous place and body orifices classic
smuggling tactics. I don't think a metal detector is reliable here (anyone
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> What is the likelihood that someone picked up at a routine traffic
> stop with a warrant for failing to pay a fine will be carrying a shiv
> that won't be picked up by metal detectors and a pat down and then
> attack someone with it in jail?
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> I think it's fair to say "not paying a fine should not land you in jail".
> IMO there are ***LOTS*** of things that will land you in jail that should
> not. But that's not what this ruling is about. At. All.
I agree.
> However
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> 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 th
What is the likelihood that someone picked up at a routine traffic
stop with a warrant for failing to pay a fine will be carrying a shiv
that won't be picked up by metal detectors and a pat down and then
attack someone with it in jail?
We've abandoned the notion of reason in the name of fear.
Th
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Judah McAuley 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
I have mixed feelings on this one. I can certainly understand the
need to make sure no one is bringing contraband into a jail, to
provide for the safety of both the jailers and the other inmates. It
would be truly tragic if the guy who was picked up on a bad warrant
had been shanked by another i
Scott, the ruling makes no distinction between different types of
jails. Further more, look at the actual person involved in the case.
He had an outstanding (though incorrect) warrant for a failure to pay
a fine. He had not been brought to trial and sentenced for the failure
to pay that fine yet.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Judah McAuley 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 ca
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>> Now, you really think it is reasonable and worthwhile to strip search
>> every single one of those 100 protestors? What is gained? Why is it
>> reasonable? Do we really need to
It seems you may have an idea of the location the searches took place
that might not be accurate (and this explanation may not even matter -
but I am going to try anyway).
These strip searches were not done in a local police department after
the man was brought to the police station. They were do
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Now, you really think it is reasonable and worthwhile to strip search
> every single one of those 100 protestors? What is gained? Why is it
> reasonable? Do we really need to sacrifice the dignity and humanness
> of all these people for the
I'd rather be the one giving the red eye than the one staring at it.
.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>>
>> IMHO - being admitted to a jail is more than enough reasonable suspicion
>> and probable cause for a s
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> IMHO - being admitted to a jail is more than enough reasonable suspicion
> and probable cause for a search. Period.
>
> This guy should never have been admitted to jail, but that's not an issue
> for the jail personel to decide. It sho
Closer...one step closer to the police state...
DUm Dum DUMM DUMMM
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffu
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> "Reasonable suspicion" and "Probable Cause" are used all the time in
> the legal system. They are one of the fundamental notions in the legal
> system.
IMHO - being admitted to a jail is more than enough reasonable suspicion
and probable c
"Reasonable suspicion" and "Probable Cause" are used all the time in
the legal system. They are one of the fundamental notions in the legal
system. There is no reason what so ever that there cannot be legally
well defined and defensible criteria to determine when strip searches
can and should be u
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Justin Scott wrote:
>> The strip search should not have happened.
>> Being jailed should not have happened.
>
> Those are really part of the same step, not generally separate tasks.
> Being strip searched is part of the process of being booked into jail
> in most
> Can't start treating some prisoners differently upon entering
> 'the system'. This will be recognized and exploited.
Indeed, which is why they have these blanket policies in the first
place. They used to use "common sense best judgement" for these kinds
of things until the inmates started to s
> The arrest should not have happened.
Agreed, though from the information presented the arresting officer
did his job properly. The information in the system was incorrect
which led the officer to take an action that was justified given the
information he had available to him at the time. If t
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
>
> To me, the real issue here is that in this day and age of technology and
> access to quick information, there is absolutely no excuse for someone to
> be detailed because records were out of date.
>
> THAT's the real tragedy in my ey
...or detained
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
> To me, the real issue here is that in this day and age of technology and
> access to quick information, there is absolutely no excuse for someone to
> be detailed because records were out of date.
>
> THAT's the real t
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
> Strip search on entering jail (as in local precinct/town jail) I can
> accept.
>
> Visual cavity search for all people entering jail I have an issue with.
>
> That ain't right.
To me, the real issue here is that in this day and age of
I think the biggest issue was that he was arrested in the first place.
After that, he was treated like any other prisoner.
He spent 6 days in jail when he should not have. That I have issue
with. The fact that he was treated like any other prisoner when he got
there I have no issues with.
Can't
Strip search on entering jail (as in local precinct/town jail) I can accept.
Visual cavity search for all people entering jail I have an issue with.
That ain't right.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson
> wrote:
>
> >
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
> And that you agree that this was reasonable, and should be allowed?
>
> I don't see it.
>
> The arrest should not have happened.
>
True
> The strip search should not have happened.
>
I think I agree with searches on entry to Jail.
Can you look at the specifics of this case, and please explain to me how
this fits in with the idea of the United States of America that we were
taught we lived in?
And that you agree that this was reasonable, and should be allowed?
I don't see it.
The arrest should not have happened.
The strip
> On a 5-4 vote, court says that it is just peachy to strip
> search anyone before putting them in a jail cell even if
> there is no cause to think that they have any contraband
> and no matter how trivial the offense was.
Being that my primary work deals with the corrections industry and I
have
72 matches
Mail list logo
