You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It looks like you don't have to be assessed to pose a risk of violence. From what I remember reading of the case, the point is that there's *no* discretion involved: it's about detention facilities that have a "everybody gets strip searched" policy.

None of which is done by the arresting officer. All of this is done at the holding facility.

And the arresting officer won't be aware of the procedures at the holding facility? Sure he or she doesn't get to do it himself, but he knows its going to get done to you.

SixteenBlue wrote:

In addition, while being arrested is not "punishment" in a legal sense, it's still an awful experience. There's nothing pleasant about it and to think that this is the straw that turns it into punishment is really weird.

What turns it into punishment is when the experience is made more awful for the wrong reasons.

+++++

If they're really concerned with prisoners getting weapons in when it comes to that region, they should put them all in chastity belts. I'll take my blood on a knife over my sh*t on a dick any day. And that's not even getting into how much more invasive this must be for women.

Getting cuffed, put in a cop car, brought to jail, etc is all pretty awful and humiliating. It's jail for f*ck's sake. Why is it that a cop can't force you to do that for the wrong reasons but can once a strip search is involved?

As for the chastity belt thing, that just doesn't make sense. "If they don't want weapons are drugs why aren't they stopping rape?" Those are 2 completely different issues and solving one doesn't have any impact on the other and vice versa.

Precisely. I think this qualifies as its own category of logical fallacy.

That and if a cop is trying to screw with you just for the sake of screwing with you, false arrest is a very serious charge. And the myriad folks I know that have worked Internal Affairs have absolutely zero sense of humor about any of that.

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Getting cuffed, put in a cop car, brought to jail, etc is all pretty awful and humiliating. It's jail for f*ck's sake. Why is it that a cop can't force you to do that for the wrong reasons but can once a strip search is involved?

Aren't you ask for a perfect solution here? Just because a cop can force you to do all that for the wrong reason doesn't mean we should make it easier for him to do even more awful and humiliating things on top of that.

As for the chastity belt thing, that just doesn't make sense. "If they don't want weapons are drugs why aren't they stopping rape?" Those are 2 completely different issues and solving one doesn't have any impact on the other and vice versa.

They both involve penetration. Unlike a fiberglass shiv, the penis is one weapon no man forgets to leave the house without.

besides King Missile.

How is that making it easier for him to falsely arrest you? Because that's how the cop will do these things to you. Do the courts go easier on him because you were strip searched? Is the police force punishment lessened? Why would you say it's easier just because there's another step added to the process?

Sure, they both involved human beings too. They're still different issues. One is rape, one is smuggling. Obviously you want to stop both but to draw the focus off smuggling weapons and drugs because raping is also going on is absurd and I'm sure on the rhetological fallacy list.

*Ugh, just saw my "weapons are drugs" type. Oops

** Wow, almost 100% Paleohausered.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Getting cuffed, put in a cop car, brought to jail, etc is all pretty awful and humiliating. It's jail for f*ck's sake. Why is it that a cop can't force you to do that for the wrong reasons but can once a strip search is involved?

Aren't you ask for a perfect solution here? Just because a cop can force you to do all that for the wrong reason doesn't mean we should make it easier for him to do even more awful and humiliating things on top of that.

As for the chastity belt thing, that just doesn't make sense. "If they don't want weapons are drugs why aren't they stopping rape?" Those are 2 completely different issues and solving one doesn't have any impact on the other and vice versa.

They both involve penetration. Unlike a fiberglass shiv, the penis is one weapon no man forgets to leave the house without.

besides King Missile.

How is that making it easier for him to falsely arrest you? Because that's how the cop will do these things to you. Do the courts go easier on him because you were strip searched? Is the police force punishment lessened? Why would you say it's easier just because there's another step added to the process?

Sure, they both involved human beings too. They're still different issues. One is rape, one is smuggling. Obviously you want to stop both but to draw the focus off smuggling weapons and drugs because raping is also going on is absurd and I'm sure on the rhetological fallacy list.

*Ugh, just saw my "weapons are drugs" type. Oops

Not to mention the fact that a smuggled weapon makes rape all the more likely.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Not to mention the fact that a smuggled weapon makes rape all the more likely.

I'll take my chances that if I get arrested, I won't come to the attention of someone who wouldn't meet any of the other criteria for a strip search yet is enough of a dangerous person that he had the foresight to hide a fiberglass shiv up his backside just in case the cops picked him up that day.

...or he got arrested on purpose to smuggle things in to jail/prison. It's not just about weapons either.

Paleocon wrote:

That and if a cop is trying to screw with you just for the sake of screwing with you, false arrest is a very serious charge. And the myriad folks I know that have worked Internal Affairs have absolutely zero sense of humor about any of that.

SixteenBlue wrote:

How is that making it easier for him to falsely arrest you?

False dichotomy: not every instance where a cop didn't have to arrest you will be considered false arrest. (oops: didn't edit fast enough to avoid a cross post) It's not about making it easier to arrest you, it's about making it more attractive for him to arrest you, knowing you'll have to go through that even if all you're being taken in for is a noisy muffler.

Paleocon wrote:

Not to mention the fact that a smuggled weapon makes rape all the more likely.

I'll take my chances that if I get arrested, I won't come to the attention of someone who wouldn't meet any of the other criteria for a strip search yet is enough of a dangerous person that he had the foresight to hide a fiberglass shiv up his backside just in case the cops picked him up that day.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

That and if a cop is trying to screw with you just for the sake of screwing with you, false arrest is a very serious charge. And the myriad folks I know that have worked Internal Affairs have absolutely zero sense of humor about any of that.

SixteenBlue wrote:

How is that making it easier for him to falsely arrest you?

False dichotomy: not every instance where a cop didn't have to arrest you will be considered false arrest. It's not about making it easier to arrest you, it's about making it more attractive for him to arrest you, knowing you'll have to go through that even if all you're being taken in for is a noisy muffler.

If it's not false then why does it matter if it's attractive for him to arrest you? That's his job. It's not a false dichotomy because the only options are you deserve to be arrested or you don't. If you do then it doesn't matter if you get strip searched. If you don't then it's a false arrest and it's no easier for him if you get searched or not.

Edit: Are you talking about a scenario where a cop has a choice to arrest you? What does "didn't have to arrest you" mean? I don't think there's any leeway with arrests. Speeding tickets maybe, but that's about it. Even still, if a dude is a dick enough to arrest you because he knows you'll get strip searched then that dude was going to arrest you anyway. Please come up with a reasonable scenario where you will only get arrested if the cop knows there's a strip search involved and that arrest is not a false arrest.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Not to mention the fact that a smuggled weapon makes rape all the more likely.

I'll take my chances that if I get arrested, I won't come to the attention of someone who wouldn't meet any of the other criteria for a strip search yet is enough of a dangerous person that he had the foresight to hide a fiberglass shiv up his backside just in case the cops picked him up that day.

...or he got arrested on purpose to smuggle things in to jail/prison. It's not just about weapons either.

Then it's not worth putting everyone through a strip search either on suspicion of some epidemic of drug mules with clean records getting arrested just to get drugs into the jail they put you in if you get arrested for a busted headlight.

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Not to mention the fact that a smuggled weapon makes rape all the more likely.

I'll take my chances that if I get arrested, I won't come to the attention of someone who wouldn't meet any of the other criteria for a strip search yet is enough of a dangerous person that he had the foresight to hide a fiberglass shiv up his backside just in case the cops picked him up that day.

...or he got arrested on purpose to smuggle things in to jail/prison. It's not just about weapons either.

Then it's not worth putting everyone through a strip search either on suspicion of some epidemic of drug mules with clean records getting arrested just to get drugs into the jail they put you in if you get arrested for a busted headlight.

People smuggle things into jail all the time. That's just a fact. How else can you stop it if you don't search everyone?

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Not to mention the fact that a smuggled weapon makes rape all the more likely.

I'll take my chances that if I get arrested, I won't come to the attention of someone who wouldn't meet any of the other criteria for a strip search yet is enough of a dangerous person that he had the foresight to hide a fiberglass shiv up his backside just in case the cops picked him up that day.

...or he got arrested on purpose to smuggle things in to jail/prison. It's not just about weapons either.

Then it's not worth putting everyone through a strip search either on suspicion of some epidemic of drug mules with clean records getting arrested just to get drugs into the jail they put you in if you get arrested for a busted headlight.

People smuggle things into jail all the time. That's just a fact. How else can you stop it if you don't search everyone?

In the state of Maryland, we have had an epidemic of folks smuggling disposable cell phones into jails so folks awaiting trial for violent crimes could coordinate the assassinations or intimidation of witnesses. Yay Baltimore!

Paleocon wrote:

In the state of Maryland, we have had an epidemic of folks smuggling disposable cell phones into jails so folks awaiting trial for violent crimes could coordinate the assassinations or intimidation of witnesses. Yay Baltimore!

Jesus. See I can't even think of all of the things that people might do.

For clarification, I'm generally in the "US is rapidly becoming a police state" camp. I just don't think strip searches before you go to jail/prison is a symptom of that or something that they can afford not to do. I don't think the court ruling here is a symptom of post 9/11 America at all, I think it's just confirmation of business as usual for law enforcement.

SixteenBlue wrote:

People smuggle things into jail all the time. That's just a fact. How else can you stop it if you don't search everyone?

According to that logic, we should give everyone a body cavity search, not just a strip search. And we should have the cops searched too--they could be on the take.

Paleocon wrote:

In the state of Maryland, we have had an epidemic of folks smuggling disposable cell phones into jails so folks awaiting trial for violent crimes could coordinate the assassinations or intimidation of witnesses. Yay Baltimore!

Exactly. Baltimore.

As far as I know, this lets any detention facility anywhere pretend like the problems they face are no different from Baltimore. Before worrying about assassinations and fiberglass shivs, shouldn't a facility have to demonstrate they have a problem with assassinations and fiberglass shivs in the first place?

SixteenBlue wrote:

For clarification, I'm generally in the "US is rapidly becoming a police state" camp. I just don't think strip searches before you go to jail/prison is a symptom of that or something that they can afford not to do. I don't think the court ruling here is a symptom of post 9/11 America at all, I think it's just confirmation of business as usual for law enforcement.

I'm actually *not* in that camp, but I also don't think something has to be a symptom of that to be wrong.

CheezePavilion wrote:

As far as I know, this lets any detention facility anywhere pretend like the problems they face are no different from Baltimore. Before worrying about assassinations and fiberglass shivs, shouldn't a facility have to demonstrate they have a problem with assassinations and fiberglass shivs in the first place?

Why are you assuming they aren't? This isn't a requirement. It's not even a change in the law. This is just a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

As far as I know, this lets any detention facility anywhere pretend like the problems they face are no different from Baltimore. Before worrying about assassinations and fiberglass shivs, shouldn't a facility have to demonstrate they have a problem with assassinations and fiberglass shivs in the first place?

Why are you assuming they aren't? This isn't a requirement. It's not even a change in the law. This is just a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it.

It's a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it without having to show any specific need to do it (as far as I know of the ruling).

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

As far as I know, this lets any detention facility anywhere pretend like the problems they face are no different from Baltimore. Before worrying about assassinations and fiberglass shivs, shouldn't a facility have to demonstrate they have a problem with assassinations and fiberglass shivs in the first place?

Why are you assuming they aren't? This isn't a requirement. It's not even a change in the law. This is just a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it.

It's a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it without having to show any specific need to do it (as far as I know of the ruling).

No, I get that. I'm saying, why are you assuming they're doing it without a need to. I get that they aren't proving it to some ruling board or anything but that doesn't mean there's not a reason.

So, to clarify...

It was standard procedure prior to a legal challenge that failed and as such, nothing has changed. How exactly is this evidence of a creeping police state?

Paleocon wrote:

So, to clarify...

It was standard procedure prior to a legal challenge that failed and as such, nothing has changed. How exactly is this evidence of a creeping police state?

Because it's in this thread, where *everything* is evidence of a creeping police state.

< /snark>

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

As far as I know, this lets any detention facility anywhere pretend like the problems they face are no different from Baltimore. Before worrying about assassinations and fiberglass shivs, shouldn't a facility have to demonstrate they have a problem with assassinations and fiberglass shivs in the first place?

Why are you assuming they aren't? This isn't a requirement. It's not even a change in the law. This is just a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it.

It's a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it without having to show any specific need to do it (as far as I know of the ruling).

No, I get that. I'm saying, why are you assuming they're doing it without a need to. I get that they aren't proving it to some ruling board or anything but that doesn't mean there's not a reason.

When it comes to something like this, proving it to some ruling board or some other kind of oversight is necessary.

Paleocon wrote:

So, to clarify...

It was standard procedure prior to a legal challenge that failed and as such, nothing has changed. How exactly is this evidence of a creeping police state?

If you're deciding policy for a detention facility, are you going to take the chance that you'll be the one unlucky facility out of thousands like yours that happens to have a stabbing that could have been prevented by a strip search? First thing the investigation is going to ask is why didn't you have strip searches: the Supreme Court said they're constitutional, so what's your reasoning? Somehow I don't think "well--I thought the dignity of those arrested was worth the risk" is going to cut it. There's no CYA room here anymore for policy makers that don't want to strip search everyone they constitutionally can.

Speaking of Maryland and cellphones: "Also indicted was Terry Robe, 26, a prison guard who officials said was fired recently for trying to smuggle a phone into the Baltimore prison where Brown, 40, was being held." So why aren't the prison guards also being strip searched?

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

As far as I know, this lets any detention facility anywhere pretend like the problems they face are no different from Baltimore. Before worrying about assassinations and fiberglass shivs, shouldn't a facility have to demonstrate they have a problem with assassinations and fiberglass shivs in the first place?

Why are you assuming they aren't? This isn't a requirement. It's not even a change in the law. This is just a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it.

It's a ruling that places that are doing it can continue to do it without having to show any specific need to do it (as far as I know of the ruling).

No, I get that. I'm saying, why are you assuming they're doing it without a need to. I get that they aren't proving it to some ruling board or anything but that doesn't mean there's not a reason.

When it comes to something like this, proving it to some ruling board or some other kind of oversight is necessary.

Paleocon wrote:

So, to clarify...

It was standard procedure prior to a legal challenge that failed and as such, nothing has changed. How exactly is this evidence of a creeping police state?

If you're deciding policy for a detention facility, are you going to take the chance that you'll be the one unlucky facility out of thousands like yours that happens to have a stabbing that could have been prevented by a strip search? First thing the investigation is going to ask is why didn't you have strip searches: the Supreme Court said they're constitutional, so what's your reasoning? Somehow I don't think "well--I thought the dignity of those arrested was worth the risk" is going to cut it. There's no CYA room here anymore for policy makers that don't want to strip search everyone they constitutionally can.

Speaking of Maryland and cellphones: "Also indicted was Terry Robe, 26, a prison guard who officials said was fired recently for trying to smuggle a phone into the Baltimore prison where Brown, 40, was being held." So why aren't the prison guards also being strip searched?

I don't have a problem with strip searches of prison guards as a condition of employment, but good luck getting that by the state employees union. That's a political issue.

So, the policy prior to the challenge was that folks *could* strip search and now because the challenge failed you're saying that all facilities *must* strip search? Riight. That's a bit of a stretch.

Paleocon wrote:

That's a bit of a stretch.

Therein lies the entire premise of the police state.

The government bought bullets = Police State
Blogger says indefinite incarceration is legal = Police State
Strip search a jail inmate = Police State

Paleocon wrote:

I don't have a problem with strip searches of prison guards as a condition of employment, but good luck getting that by the state employees union. That's a political issue.

The Supreme Court should have made it a constitutional issue: you can search anyone, but then you have to search everyone, including the guards.

So, the policy prior to the challenge was that folks *could* strip search and now because the challenge failed you're saying that all facilities *must* strip search? Riight. That's a bit of a stretch.

You don't think the Supreme Court itself giving the clear go-ahead will have an effect on the choice of folks whether to institute strip searches or not? Isn't that the stretch here?

Jayhawker wrote:

Strip search a jail inmate = Police State

I'm actually not arguing that, but if you guys don't appreciate the derail and would like to get back to that kind of discussion, just let me know. ; D

Cheeze, did you see my edit? You didn't respond to it and I think it might have gotten lost in the fast post shuffle.

Edit: Are you talking about a scenario where a cop has a choice to arrest you? What does "didn't have to arrest you" mean? I don't think there's any leeway with arrests. Speeding tickets maybe, but that's about it. Even still, if a dude is a dick enough to arrest you because he knows you'll get strip searched then that dude was going to arrest you anyway. Please come up with a reasonable scenario where you will only get arrested if the cop knows there's a strip search involved and that arrest is not a false arrest.

Also to address the dignity issue: This isn't TSA harassing consumers. This is prison/jail security. I'm pretty sure safety > dignity has always been the case.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Cheeze, did you see my edit? You didn't respond to it and I think it might have gotten lost in the fast post shuffle.

Edit: Are you talking about a scenario where a cop has a choice to arrest you? What does "didn't have to arrest you" mean? I don't think there's any leeway with arrests. Speeding tickets maybe, but that's about it. Even still, if a dude is a dick enough to arrest you because he knows you'll get strip searched then that dude was going to arrest you anyway. Please come up with a reasonable scenario where you will only get arrested if the cop knows there's a strip search involved and that arrest is not a false arrest.

Oh, I didn't: I disagree that it's not reasonable.

Also to address the dignity issue: This isn't TSA harassing consumers. This is prison/jail security. I'm pretty sure safety > dignity has always been the case.

Again, I disagree: safety doesn't trump dignity. Some safety risks are worth it--it's a balance.

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Cheeze, did you see my edit? You didn't respond to it and I think it might have gotten lost in the fast post shuffle.

Edit: Are you talking about a scenario where a cop has a choice to arrest you? What does "didn't have to arrest you" mean? I don't think there's any leeway with arrests. Speeding tickets maybe, but that's about it. Even still, if a dude is a dick enough to arrest you because he knows you'll get strip searched then that dude was going to arrest you anyway. Please come up with a reasonable scenario where you will only get arrested if the cop knows there's a strip search involved and that arrest is not a false arrest.

Oh, I didn't: I disagree that it's not reasonable.

Also to address the dignity issue: This isn't TSA harassing consumers. This is prison/jail security. I'm pretty sure safety > dignity has always been the case.

Again, I disagree: safety doesn't trump dignity. Some safety risks are worth it--it's a balance.

You disagree that what's not reasonable? I didn't give a scenario, I asked for one.

I agree, it's a balance. The behavior of inmates has determined that strip searches are on the required side of that balance. Likewise, it's not required to board a plane or enter a court room. The balance is different everywhere.

SixteenBlue wrote:

You disagree that what's not reasonable? I didn't give a scenario, I asked for one.

I disagree that just because a dude is enough of a jerk to arrest you knowing you'll get strip searched he's enough of a jerk to arrest you anyway. There's additional incentive if he knows you'll get strip searched.

I agree, it's a balance. The behavior of inmates has determined that strip searches are on the required side of that balance.

Again, I disagree: I don't think the behavior of inmates has determined that.

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

You disagree that what's not reasonable? I didn't give a scenario, I asked for one.

I disagree that just because a dude is enough of a jerk to arrest you knowing you'll get strip searched he's enough of a jerk to arrest you anyway. There's additional incentive if he knows you'll get strip searched.

This ignores the entire part about false arrest. Does the cop not have an obligation to arrest you if you commit a crime? And if you didn't then isn't it false arrest? Are you saying the extra incentive will then push them over the edge into false arrest? That's why I asked for a scenario where this makes a difference, because I don't believe there is one.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

You disagree that what's not reasonable? I didn't give a scenario, I asked for one.

I disagree that just because a dude is enough of a jerk to arrest you knowing you'll get strip searched he's enough of a jerk to arrest you anyway. There's additional incentive if he knows you'll get strip searched.

This ignores the entire part about false arrest. Does the cop not have an obligation to arrest you if you commit a crime?

No:

Merrick Bobb, an attorney who monitors the Sheriff's Department and has reviewed a copy of the memo, says he agrees with its general message that police do not have to cite every lawbreaker they come across.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...

The police did not decide there was a crime, or that Goldsmith was dangerous. The reason Goldsmith ended up in jail is because the arrest was mandatory under domestic relations law in the District of Columbia (as it also is in 22 states). What this means is that if there's a complaint of any domestic incident - here, the record shows harsh words by the wife and a shove by the husband - the police have no discretion. They are basically compelled to arrest the husband when they arrive on the scene (unless they think the incident was fabricated). Nor does it matter if, as here, the wife pleads with police not to arrest her husband once they arrive.

In New York, which does not have a mandatory arrest law, the police would have evaluated the situation: Was anyone injured (no), was there a prior record of domestic violence (no), were parties under the influence (no), did Stephen Goldsmith appear to be dangerous (no)?

Upon completing this evaluation, they would almost certainly have left without making an arrest or otherwise intervening. They would have duly noted the incident on the record in case the situation arose again - but wouldn't have taken anyone into custody.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...

The extent to which states have permitted the police to retain discretion varies considerably. While some states allow police a great deal of discretion, many states require more aggressive intervention. While a mandatory arrest law states that an officer must make an arrest if (s)he finds probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed, a preferred arrest law instructs the responding officer that arrest is the preferred response.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...

OK. That's fair and leads to the next point I made. So you think a cop would choose to arrest you due to the strip search but wouldn't if there was no search. When/how would that happen? They're dick enough to want you to get strip searched but still nice enough to let you go if there wasn't a search?

SixteenBlue wrote:

OK. That's fair and leads to the next point I made. So you think a cop would choose to arrest you due to the strip search but wouldn't if there was no search. When/how would that happen? They're dick enough to want you to get strip searched but still nice enough to let you go if there wasn't a search?

Like I keep saying, it creates a greater incentive and makes it more worth someone's time if they want to be a dick to you.

Maybe I've got something in the back of my head that I'm assuming is clear but needs to be expressed: I think it's pretty easy to make an argument for the connection between the type of person that would arrest you just for challenging their authority and the type of person who would be much more likely to consider it worth their while to arrest you if they know the potential humiliation of a strip search is waiting for you. A strip search isn't just another headache, it's a particular kind of ordeal that I think would have an increased appeal to someone with those kinds of issues. Yeah, it sucks to be arrested for anything, but humiliating someone is of particular interest to a person who wants to teach you a lesson and show you who's boss, isn't it?