By a 5-4 vote, the conservative bloc with Justice Kennedy okayed strip searches for even minor offenses.
An individual was arrested (passenger in a car) because his wife was speeding. He had a warrant out for his arrest due to an unpaid fine (this was erroneous, the fine was paid). He was jailed for 6 days and strip searched twice during the ordeal before the error was discovered and corrected.
Medium outrage here (mostly because I don’t have much dealing with the police). Perhaps the Supremes could define exactly what is left of the “unreasonable search” portion of Ammendment IV?
As noted in several related articles, this expansion of searches has been a trend lately. I am especially incredulous because part of the justification for the ruling was that, “See, Timothy McVeigh was arrested due to a minor traffic violation”. Exactly how was this related to a strip search is beyond me. Did Timmy have the bombing plans rolled up in his derriere? Was Timmy strip searched? Do the Supremes actually read their opinions before publishing?
So by waving the, “Terrorists, Terrorists, they’re everywhere”, flag, much of the IV ammemdment is struck down? By the strict constructionists? I’m boggled. I’m a fan of the constitution even though the smart dudes back then couldn’t have forseen everything so ammendments are a good thing.
*Lily Tomlin said…“No matter how cynical you get, you can never keep up!” *
That is why in my state, Ohio, we can not be arrested, at least if cited under state law, for minor traffic offenses, exceptions permitted, such as refusing to sign the citation.
Our Constitution does NOT permit what Atwater v. Lago Vista does. While cities can up the offense, any crime classified by city or state as a Minor Misdemeanor, which most little traffic offensses are, we can not be arrested for a violation.
I am though at odds with the just handed down decision above. Although it does not address a cavity search, being stipped is enough.
First, I think it is silly that people can be arrested for traffic offenses, even unpaid fines.
That being said, in order to maintain security in a jail, don’t you have to strip search prisoners before they go inside? If you didn’t then contraband would come in very easily.
I don’t see how the offense is related to whether someone gets searched. It is unreasonable to search someone where they have an expectation of privacy. How does an inmate being processed into a prison have an expectation of privacy?
Reasonableness is also a function of whether the search has a legitimate purpose. Smuggling contraband into a prison is a problem for prison authorities no matter what offense was commited. All criminals have the same rights no matter what offense they are arrested for, the strip search is not part of the punishment, it is a response to the problem of smuggled contraband which can not be solved in any other manner. The dissent assumes that the judges know how to conduct contraband searches better than the prison guards do. I find that highly unlikely.
He wasn’t arrested because his wife was speeding. As you pointed out, he was arrested because he had an outstanding warrant. I don’t see anything wrong with subjecting prisoners to strip searches and I don’t see this as an encroachment on my freedoms.
I agree with others in this thread.
The problem isn’t the strip search. The problem is the arrest. The problem is the continued imprisonment well past the time when a mistake should have been corrected.
But once he’s been arrested and is subject to imprisonment, it’s probably necessary to do a thorough search of him as a measure of security.
As to the decision: how about we frame it this way: it you’re put in jail, can the jail authorities strip-search you?
To me, the answer is obviously ‘yes.’ How else could you possibly control contraband coming into a jail?
Now, you can argue that this guy shouldn’t have been jailed, but he was. It was an error that he was, but he was. The guys running the jail correctly did a strip search because the plaintiff was an inmate and was joining the jail population.
So why was this opinion wrong, exactly? Does the Constitution require us to run two jails: one for guys with only minor offenses and another for more serious offenses? (I assume no one is saying the Constitution requires us to run one jail for falsely accused guys.)
The Question Presented was;
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search of every individual arrested for any minor offense no matter what the circumstances.
I think it’s a reasonable security measure to allow the strip-search inmates upon incarceration.
I’d prefer that there was some leeway given to the prison authorities to not strip search people who do not appear to be a security threat, but I can see how that lends opportunities for abuse.
What’s wrong here is 1) jailing a guy for an unpaid fine which he had already paid and 2) keeping him in jail for six days before it is straightened out.
And the concurrences of Alito and Roberts make sure to emphasize that this applies to individuals admitted to the jail’s general population.
As you correctly observe, Lago Vista is the real trouble here. I don’t think people have trouble wrapping thier heads around the concept that if you’re put in jail, where you’ll have contact with other inmates, you can be strip-searched. I think the bad reaction comes from the idea that someone can be arrested and jailed under these circumstances.
Although our state had already discredited Atwater’s principle, even before Atwater, Brown was arrested on authority of it. The OSC reaffirmed, NO, an offense punishable by a money fine only, Minor Misdemeanor, is NOT arrestable, few exceptions.
They also cite Montana:
{¶23} The Supreme Court of Montana similarly held that Montana’s
Constitution provides greater protection than that provided by the Fourth
Amendment as interpreted by Atwater. State v. Bauer (2001), 307 Mont. 105, 36
P.3d 892. In that case, the court stated:
{¶24} “We hold that under Article II, Section 10 and Section 11, of the
Montana Constitution, it is unreasonable for a police officer to effect an arrest and
detention for a non-jailable offense when there are no circumstances to justify an
immediate arrest. In the absence of special circumstances such as a concern for
the safety of the offender or the public, a person stopped for a non-jailable offense
such as * * * a seatbelt infraction should not be subjected to the indignity of an
arrest and police station detention when a simple, non-intrusive notice to appear
pursuant to §46-6-310(1), MCA, will serve the interests of law enforcement.” Id.
at ¶ 33.
I just like the thought of Antonin getting “invasively searched.”
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t think people have trouble wrapping thier heads around the concept that if you’re put in jail, where you’ll have contact with other inmates, you can be strip-searched. I think the bad reaction comes from the idea that someone can be arrested and jailed under these circumstances.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Prisoners have no expectation of privacy. This guy never should have been in the system in the first place. The decision was probably a correct one, but it still niggles at me that we accept so many things in the name of “National Security” that we shouldn’t.
He had a warrant out for his arrest due to an unpaid fine (this was erroneous, the fine was paid). He was jailed for 6 days and strip searched twice during the ordeal before the error was discovered and corrected.