-i think your right again Joe. Ive heard of some groovy spiritual communes back in the mid 60s, before “the change”. Folks who had faith in the true god who created the garden. There philosophy was If there werent such a thing as clothes, there wouldnt be any need for stripsearches. And, if your dont drive, your chances of getting a parking ticket are largely diminished. But nobody listened to them. And theyre still not listening, Joe … back to the garden… .occupy in the nude … hide your lsd in the fingernail polish your wearing … celebrate … spring is just around the corner !

It’s an undeniable fact that some of the people who are jailed awaiting trial turn out to be innocent, or at least it can’t be proved that they are guilty. It’s awful that innocent people have to go through the strip-search process, though I’m not sure how that could be avoided in cases where the police have good reason to make an arrest and the charges are serious enough to warrant jailing the suspect.

But it seems to me that for people who are only accused of minor, non-violent offenses, we don’t need to be jailing so many of them in the first place. If we can stop jailing so many people unnecessarily, then obviously there will be a lot fewer unnecessary strip-searches taking place.

From the context of the case, I’d say it sounds pretty clear that the decision is in reference to correctional settings, but I have no idea if that’s how such decisions work in the real world. I’ll assume my concerns listed above are about as relevant to the situation as one can hope to be.

As an aside, I see this lawyer quoted in the story thinks along the same line as I do:

Susan Chana Lask, an attorney for Mr. Florence, said the decision should have been expected given the other constitutionally damning legislation added to the books in recent years, including the provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act that allow for the United State to detain any American indefinitely without charge for suspected terrorist ties.

Great minds think alike?

I’m not sure that’s what the ruling says. I’m also not sure if the ruling is as narrow as I’m assuming it is.

I believe they’re just saying that jails aren’t violating rights by strip searching prisoners that are going to be admitted to, and mixed in with, the general prisoner population. That’s regardless of the offense they were arrested for.

I’m not sure but I don’t believe that applies to a prisoner being held in a holding cell. At least it shouldn’t, although I’m sure some agencies might interpret the ruling as such and therein lies the danger.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some agencies interpret the ruling to allow them to strip search any prisoner that enters their facility, whether in a holding cell, or even waiting in the lobby for someone to come pick them up.

Mitch’s comment also illustrates the danger in that, if he thinks this allows strip searches of people simply stopped by police, I’m sure there might well be police that think the same thing that might act accordingly.

If you accept the argument that someone stopped in their car and discovered to have an unpaid traffic ticket needs to be strip-searched because they might have contraband, then we should all be strip-searched daily if we intend to leave the house. And if we stay in the house, their should be random checks.

We don’t want our supermarkets and offices to be the next terrorist target! This is all for our safety and security, and we should be grateful.

Lately? It began when the Burger Court replaced the Warren Court way back in the 1970s. Scalia has quite literally never met a car search he didn’t like.