US Supreme Court Approve Strip-Searches for Any Offense

I dont commit any serious crime cause i dont want to go to jail and get my ass butt raped.
Now i dont want to commit anything cause i dont want my balls to be handled by some dude.

lmao.....he's stone stupid, let it go.....

Never said you were. Clearly its the government that is unless you are the secret TSA policy setter and the secret Puppet Master of the entire Supreme Court.

You meant to say that into this...

The center of this issue is that there are mandated safety regulations that states produce. There are required safety protocols, emergency programs that are set in place to handle any situation that may cause injury to employees. This was the main crutch of the argument. It doesn't mean that Joe Blow average citizen wouldn't have legal recourse if he was illegally searched. But if they have a repeat, known violent offender, many of those safety programs requires strip searches. I look at this the same way I look at taxes, It's what we have to live with.

he only cares about the prisoners "rights", doesn't give a shit for the safety of the correctional officers or the other inmates...

This is a great example of the media dragging people around by the nose. If a person can prove the State violated their own strip search protocols, they can make bank. I can only advise, obey the law and don't swing at the cop.

You misunderstand the facts of the case and the result of the ruling. Anyone who is arrested for any reason can now be strip searched. No known violent offender history qualifier is needed. In the case that resulted in this ruling, the man that was arrested was arrested for an unpaid fine. He actually had paid the fine and because he had come across this before (the NJ computer system not updating his case for some reason) he had on him the court document that said he had paid his fine. The cops that had pulled over his wife for speeding didn't care and arrested him anyway. He spent several days (maybe an entire week - i forget at the moment) in jail in NJ. He was moved a couple of times and was strip searched twice as a result. All because of a computer error and a couple of asshole cops that didn't care about the court document he had on him and showed them.

A lot of people are arrested and released without ever getting charged. You can literally get arrested for no actual reason and now thanks to this horrible SC ruling under the guise of "safety" any bullshit arrest can included the added humiliation of a strip search. Doesn't sound a lot like a system that is suppose to have a foundation of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty in a Court of Law" to me.

I care about the rights of all americans (really all humans). You also don't seem to understand this court ruling. We are talking about people are have not had their day in court. People that the system is suppose to consider "Innocent" at this time in the process. I think their rights trump the safety of the correction officers. The correction officers know the risks when they take the job.

I'm not being dragged around by anyone. This ruling is clearly horrible. You want to keep trying to crow bar some violent action into this court ruling when the court ruling gives absolutely no violent action qualifier. Why are you making shit up to defend this horrible ruling? I guess that just goes to show how bad of a ruling it is that you need to invent shit to try to make it not seem like a bad ruling.

Even if the original case the police claimed the guy took a swing at them, the ruling did not add that qualifier into it.

And if you think everyone arrested broke the law, why do we bother with trials? Arrest equal guilt than why waste everyone's time and money.

Clearly errors were made. The dude did NOTHING wrong. I can see where you would strip search violent offenders or anybody actually sentenced to prison. But to take a guy who supposedly didn't pay a fine (which he really did pay) and force him to go through this in my mind is a huge violation of his rights (I know I am wrong because the SCOTUS said so) as well as a huge waste of taxpayer money. If anybody had just bothered to check the document he carried all of this would have been avoided.

Would you still feel the same as you do if you were pulled over for a broken taillight and there was some mixup with a guy who had the same name as you who didn't pay a fine and resulted in your asshole being inspected by Bubba and you being tossed in jail for a few days until it was straighted out? Would you really just shrug it off and say it's best that Bubba was safe?

Look, you're looking at this from the Federal perspective. There's not one State in this country that can't pass a law tomorrow banning searches all together. All SCOTUS did was give the nod to States if needed for security purposes. This cannot be a case of "I'd rather see 100 prison guards get knifed then 1 innocent person get strip searched" when employee safety is concerned. States can still be liable for unreasonable searches and they surely don't want the expense of defending it.

You are missing the ramifications of this ruling from the highest court in the land, this is no longer an unreasonable search as long as the person has been arrested. Of course the States can limit this and hopefully they will. Clearly NJ won't be as they already don't.

If this is such an issue it seems like the better solution is to not keep people arrested in prisons that are suppose to be for the convicted instead of potentially subjecting anyone ever arrested for anything to a strip search. We used to have a right to privacy, a strip search couldn't violate than anymore if you tried.

may be time to get the public sector unions involved...these poor union workers are not being unreasonable when they're asking for a safe environment from those in custody

No, I'm not. I look at things objectively, use what common sense I have accumulated over my life and have learned how things work. In this case the only thing the Supreme Court could do ( as they usually do) is give a thumbs up or down. They can't give a thumb in the middle because putting stipulations on the decision infringes on the needs of the state to apply the ruling to their requirements, some that are mandated by the Federal Government. I understand your argument just fine. If you live in a state that strip searches people for parking fines, then you need to apply pressure to your state legislatures to change the State mandated protocols.

You are right zimmers. And along the same exact thought process; the police should be able to expect to be safe from everyone they ever encounter in their jobs. Time to out law all guns and round up every single privately owned weapon in the entire nation. How else can we ensure those poor police officers a safe work environment? Safety at work now trumps constitutional rights so bye-bye 2nd, right? Or is that different some how and not the same thing? Maybe you only care about the rights of those dangerous gun and weapon owners and don't give a shit about those poor police officers.

if that were the case they wouldn't carry guns or take an oath to enforce the law......I think cops understand that........nobody carries guns or weapons in prison because it supposed to be a secure environment, not the streets...where do you come up with this stupid stuff?

You are the one who made the ignorant analogy about PRISONS. The employ Guards, not POLICE !

You will notice the difference when they bust you for your child porn collection.

People forget or overlook the fact that one of the best things about our country is the freedom we have in choosing where we live. Not many countries give you the to choice to live in an area where you can mold your local government based on the community you prefer. You like guns, move to Texas. You have a progressive ideology, plenty of places to live. That's what's most important about not infringing on a states right to conduct itself according to the will of their people.

Prison guards know the risk when they take the job as well. Why do prison guards get the right to a safe work environment but not police? Why don't you care about the rights of the police?

That does not take away the liability of the employer of those employees. It means they are required to design safety programs designed to the job at hand. No different than an electrician working high voltage 100 feet in the air. Or an ER nurse working with strange bodily fluids. Employers, are required to have a 0 risk accident policy in place at all times. Do they happen? Yes, but not because the policy wasn't being followed.

Right, so when are we outlawing all guns and weapons in order to have a safety program for police officers?

When everyone goes to work for the same company.

Not all prison guards work for the same company. Some are private employees, some are government employees. And not everyone arrested is working for the same company either.

These are the workplace safety rules, adopted by the State Legislatures. They have to have them because somebody from the Federal Government said "You have to have a program that identifies safety risks that may occur in your facility." That would be OSHA. One of the identifiable risks is that somebody may pull something out of their ass and hurt somebody. That info is given to the state legislature and they give what they determine is the appropriate amount of search authority to the correctional departments. That's how it works. No conspiracies and I can't be any clearer. You want to change things? You have at least 100 places to start before you even get to this supreme court decision.