Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello,

A shameful invasion of privacy done for no other reason than to hurt someone emotionally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello,

A shameful invasion of privacy done for no other reason than to hurt someone emotionally.

---

No, to keep weapons and other contraband out of prisons.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko: In your world, are people routinely put in prison for having paid a traffic ticket?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko: In your world, are people routinely put in prison for having paid a traffic ticket?

---

No, but in my world people are not perfect and mistakes happen. Are you going to blame the police for arresting a man they thought had unpaid tickets?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko: Yes. Because he clearly explained to them what the problem was WITH THEIR SYSTEM, and showed them an official document noting that he had indeed paid his tickets. The police were 100% in the wrong, and they ass-raped him for pointing out their mistake, and the SCOTUS says that's just fine.

You're deluded if you think this is about smuggling weapons into prisons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko: Yes. Because he clearly explained to them what the problem was WITH THEIR SYSTEM, and showed them an official document noting that he had indeed paid his tickets. The police were 100% in the wrong, and they ass-raped him for pointing out their mistake, and the SCOTUS says that's just fine.

You're deluded if you think this is about smuggling weapons into prisons.

---

He did all those things. He just happened to have the official documents in the car he was driving? Where did you read that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho: It's in the article in the first page. The gentleman in question is black so he had reason to suspect the police would pull him over at any given time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite: Also, according to the reasons used and the body parts inspected, this wasn't just a strip search but also a visual cavity search.

It wasn't rape in that there was no penetration. Whether or not the procedure qualifies as sexual assault if unwarranted is another thing. A number of states require a warrant for a cavity search even when taking a person into custody including New Jersey, and I doubt they had a warrant. They didn't have to have a warrant if it was just a strip search, but according to the information and the legal definitions, it was more than a strip search.

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/3strpsch.pdf

Basically the only reason you're defending this is because it's police and security officers. Would you defend this if anyone else had done something like this?

Also, you're incorrect that it was prison guards, it was the police detaining him in the holding cells of their jail, which is done at the discretion of the police but which is in fact pretty routine.

The way the system works, when you're arrested, you are held in jail until you can post bail. Then if they can drum up charges, you get a court summons. If you're convicted of the charges, THEN you go to prison.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2: Nick, this story has been around for a week or so. He had the documents with him because he'd been hassled before and wanted to avoid it. The computer hadn't registered that he'd paid the fine, but he had, as the story probably mentions. I haven't read it, because I've already heard about this numerous times--I thought others had too. It disgusts me as it does others; all the cops had to do, even after they arrested him, was contact the appropriate office to see if what he was saying was true; they had all the pertinent documents and numbers, etc. They just don't give a shit.

---

Quote:

---

The distrubing part about this story is not the strip searches by the prison officals

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

A policy of universal strip searches - conducted without reference to logic, intelligence, or evidence, is a policy of violation and humiliation.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT: I disagree. I strongly disagree. There was no reason to believe this man was smuggling something dangerous.

A policy of universal strip searches - conducted without reference to logic, intelligence, or evidence, is a policy of violation and humiliation.

---

Quote:

---

"Florence's entry into the general jail population gave guards the authorization to force him to strip naked and expose his mouth, nose, ears and genitals to a visual search in case he was hiding anything."

---

Quote:

---

The distrubing part about this story is not the strip searches by the prison officals, but the fact that the police arrested him when he had proof he had paid his fine and the fact that the court system let him be held for 6 day before a hearing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite: That's a cavity search. Those are cavities.

While a strip search can sometimes involve looking into the nose, ears, and mouth for contraband, it becomes a cavity search if they also check the urethra, the rectum, or in the case of women, the vagina. If they were looking at his junk, WHY were they looking at his junk? They said they were looking for contraband? That's the legal definition of a cavity search.

It's a cavity search, and they probably skirted the regulations about a warrant for it.

As for the jail and the department of corrections, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I know some jails are just run by the sheriff or the police chief, and are contained within the police station itself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite: The guidelines used by New Jersey that I just linked to said you need both the okay of the person in charge of the facility (which they probably had) and a warrant (which is questionable) to perform a cavity search.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite: That appears to be the case. Good to know the SCOTUS supports arresting people off the street and tossing them in jail regardless of innocence or guilt, and then forcing degrading acts upon them. Makes you really feel like we live in an enlightened system. Maybe New Jersey could hire some of the guards from Abu Ghraib and Blackwater.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Simple - follow one or more of them black robed punks home, bust em when they almost inevitably commit some minor traffic violation, and then do this crap to THEM. And hoo boy, watch how fast they change their minds, ehe ?

Or find a way to throw that treatment in the direction of some of these cops or corrections officials, in fact... How about making it official policy to do so to said corrections officials at the beginning of every shift, while insinuating (probably accurately) that THEY are the ones most often responsible for contraband, hmm ?

As usual, as soon as the lords in black and blue have to face a level playing field, on noes, it's not "fair" anymore and they have a sudden change of heart, or wanna further manipulate the law to exclude themselves from it, and that right there is the root of corruption, no one in america should ever, ever, be allowed to write or enforce a law they themselves are not subject to the consequences of.

Case in point - wanting to ban recording them, but justify recording us, likely in response to us turning their surveillence society around on em and catching out the massive amounts of abusive conduct. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-police-eavesdropping-2
0120401,0,5025698.story Funny thing about that, in a stand up case, a recording PROTECTS the officer, no matter the source, and thus the attempt to outlaw recording them is a backhanded admission of guilt.

Also, such searches are far more about bullying, harrassment and humilation than any supposed safety. Case in point - The Milwaukee Police Dept make an unofficial policy of this type of intimidation, and only now is finally facing the music about it. http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/144297755.html

Myself, I certainly try to avoid trouble if possible, since my response to being felt up or assaulted in that way is decking someone, and that comes with its own problems, sure - but frankly I believe that to be a wholly justified response if the search in question is just screwing with someone for the LuLz.

-Frem

"I do not serve The Blind God."

---

Quote:

---

If a officer gets arrested and put in jail they will be searched as such, so they are subjected to that law, just the same as other people who are arrested. It is also interesting to note that the corrections officers are not the one setting policies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT: I understand where you're coming from Nick, but I think that even the accused deserve a fair shake at privacy when it can be afforded to them. My rule of thumb is thus: Dignity and respect always, even to criminals. As much as you can give them. Otherwise we're not running corrections facilities. We're running Pain and Shame centers.

---

Quote:

---

The case before the court had nothing to do with the man being held for 6 days, or where he was held. It only had to do with the strip searches. If you get arrested and have to be held for some length of time before you go before a judge you will be put into a jail. It has been that way for awhile.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Possibly Frem believes that Officers of the Law are not as liable to be arrested for their petty offences. From my own observations, I think he is correct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Well, how bout this, Nick - take them damn porno-scanners out of the airports and put em in the prisons. Solves that problem, yes ?

-F

---