The Supreme Court Approves Strip-Searches For All

[Terralthra]

America, the country where you can be searched without a warrant.

Is this a joke? How would you get to remanded to a prison without a warrant or a judge's imprimatur at some point?

[Mr Bean]

Is this a joke? How would you get to remanded to a prison without a warrant or a judge's imprimatur at some point?

Questioning, you can be brought in purely on a cops say so and end up in the county lockup without charges.

[Terralthra]

Is this a joke? How would you get to remanded to a prison without a warrant or a judge's imprimatur at some point?

Questioning, you can be brought in purely on a cops say so and end up in the county lockup without charges.

You wouldn't be put in to a general prison population under those circumstances, hence, not fall under this ruling.

[Mr Bean]

You wouldn't be put in to a general prison population under those circumstances, hence, not fall under this ruling.

You will on a Friday

[Sky Captain]

Were fireworks-induced stampedes that common in the past?

Or is this yet another case where everyone signs away their freedom from groping in perpetuity because of something one guy did, in one place, once?

Here I can't recall such accidents with lethal consequences, but IIRC there have been some deadly nightclub fires in other countries caused by fireworks.
When I went to Rammstein show few month ago I recall one guy had laser pointer (not the regular weak one but a powerful one that could easily blind you) and knife confiscated. Some form of security search is required because if there wouldn't it would only encourage idiots to bring dangerous items into arenas.

[Block]

You wouldn't be put in to a general prison population under those circumstances, hence, not fall under this ruling.

You will on a Friday

Usually they leave you in county lockup if you're not going to be seen until next week. In most places you'll have maybe one cell mate, not the same thing as general population.

[Block]

Were fireworks-induced stampedes that common in the past?

Or is this yet another case where everyone signs away their freedom from groping in perpetuity because of something one guy did, in one place, once?

They do this at sports events in the US too, but they're looking for knives and guns usually, and that's because people have been known to use them. Philly used to have at least 2 or 3 stabbings a season at Eagles games, I know the Raiders had a couple too.

[Simon_Jester]

Do they do pat-downs of everyone going in?

If so, I'm just as happy I don't care enough about sports to go see games.

[Questor]

Last time I was at Dodger Stadium, there were walk-throughs and a bag search. This was right after that San Francisco fan was beaten though.

Can't remember anything I'd consider "airport style." Maybe a step up from an amusement park bag check* but not by much. Certainly didn't have to take off my belt, which is pretty universal at airports that I've been through lately (US, Canada, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico).

* Anyone who thinks these have anything to do with security instead of driving up revenue by giving them a better chance to catch people bringing in huge amounts of food is nuts.

[Block]

Last time I was at Dodger Stadium, there were walk-throughs and a bag search. This was right after that San Francisco fan was beaten though.

Can't remember anything I'd consider "airport style." Maybe a step up from an amusement park bag check* but not by much. Certainly didn't have to take off my belt, which is pretty universal at airports that I've been through lately (US, Canada, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico).

* Anyone who thinks these have anything to do with security instead of driving up revenue by giving them a better chance to catch people bringing in huge amounts of food is nuts.

They make you open your coats and pat your pockets too usually, depends on the venue. It's not a full body pat down.

[Sea Skimmer]

Philadelphia stadiums pat down every single person entering at least around the waist and upper legs, and open every bag. They are looking for people bringing in liquor as much as for bombs and knives though. Got to protect those eight dollar beer sales.

[Simon_Jester]

Huh.

Well, that's a pity.

I really do think I agree with Broomstick- the 21st century is going to get ugly if we don't start making a point of the idea of right-to-privacy.

[Sea Skimmer]

Airports and stadiums are hardly private settings, when you enter a stadium for a major sports event for example you are already entering expecting and agreeing to be filmed and have your image copyrighted and sold on national TV. Do you think people have a reasonable right to carry anything they want into those venues? The argument is vastly greater for prisons because the whole process is involuntary by definition. Like anyone rational, I have some issues with the methods used by the TSA, but not the right to search in principal.

[Simon_Jester]

What bothers me is the predictable mission creep and expansion of all this- the security is trending towards "tighter," with more surveillance not just by the state but by private entities. I'm not exactly sure what I think about airports and stadiums; the pre-9/11 regime of metal detectors I don't have an objection to, but somewhere on the road from there to X-ray backscatter nakedcam, I think we crossed a line.

I'm worried about erosion to the answers given to the question "who has the right to search me, where, for what purposes, and when will someone actually get in trouble for demanding too many rights to search me too intrusively?"

And then there's the whole online privacy issue, which is related but only insofar as it ties into the general character of privacy.

I get that there are degrees- a background check not justified for a job at a convenience store is justified for law enforcement, a search not justified when entering a museum is justified when entering a prison, there are huge differences there. But I'm rather glum about the long-term trend, because it seems like a continuous process of stripping away people's right to move around and communicate with each other without large organizations making a big intimidating show of intrusive control physically, and without other large organizations making a quiet, unobtrusive show of making sure they know you better than you know yourself, for purposes of whatever-the-hell-they-like.

[Block]

What bothers me is the predictable mission creep and expansion of all this- the security is trending towards "tighter," with more surveillance not just by the state but by private entities. I'm not exactly sure what I think about airports and stadiums; the pre-9/11 regime of metal detectors I don't have an objection to, but somewhere on the road from there to X-ray backscatter nakedcam, I think we crossed a line.

I'm worried about erosion to the answers given to the question "who has the right to search me, where, for what purposes, and when will someone actually get in trouble for demanding too many rights to search me too intrusively?"

And then there's the whole online privacy issue, which is related but only insofar as it ties into the general character of privacy.

I get that there are degrees- a background check not justified for a job at a convenience store is justified for law enforcement, a search not justified when entering a museum is justified when entering a prison, there are huge differences there. But I'm rather glum about the long-term trend, because it seems like a continuous process of stripping away people's right to move around and communicate with each other without large organizations making a big intimidating show of intrusive control physically, and without other large organizations making a quiet, unobtrusive show of making sure they know you better than you know yourself, for purposes of whatever-the-hell-they-like.

Well this trend in the US isn't going to change unless people decide that they've had enough and make a concerted effort to vote for people who consider privacy to be a basic right.

[Simon_Jester]

There are several related problems with the Fourth Amendment.

One is that the Court's jurisprudence has been pretty narrow about defining who the Fourth protects us from: basically, only the police. If the Fourth were interpreted to prevent 'unreasonable searches' by private organizations, and if this was seriously enforced, I'd be a lot less uncomfortable on the privacy front.

I think that removing the right to privacy from "penumbra" status and actually spelling it out in black and white would have a salutary effect. At least, I hope it would.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I guess we could spell out more and more, but idk, "unreasonable search" is elegant in its simplicity; it should apply to all kinds of cases, where a laundry list definition of privacy might not.

Do you realize that the entire debate of privacy rights is based on the idea that "unreasonable" is a subjective concept, and not as clear cut and unambiguous as you seem to think it is? The word "unreasonable" can carry a number of different connotations, and any one of those is open to interpretation. When you talk about the privacy rights issue, you are talking about trying to set standard boundaries between what should legally be considered reasonable and unreasonable. Is asking for race on census forms "reasonable" (there are those who contend it is not)? What about employers demanding personal information?

It is neither helpful nor informative to dismiss the debate by saying, "Oh LOL unreasonable makes sense to me!", when the whole point is that we are trying to delineate an ambiguous, abstract concept.

[Broomstick]

What bothers me is the predictable mission creep and expansion of all this- the security is trending towards "tighter," with more surveillance not just by the state but by private entities. I'm not exactly sure what I think about airports and stadiums; the pre-9/11 regime of metal detectors I don't have an objection to, but somewhere on the road from there to X-ray backscatter nakedcam, I think we crossed a line.

The funny thing is, I remember when no one was searched before boarding an airplane. You just walked right up to the plane before leaving and the stewardess at the bottom of the stairs (it was always stairways I remember from them, not the modern "jetways" or whatever they're called) took your ticket and you got on. It was just like boarding a bus or taxi. No metal detectors, no one asking about your luggage.

That old Twilight Zone episode with William Shatner where he pulls out a gun and starts shooting at a gremlin on the wing? Totally plausible when first broadcast. No one searched you for weapons even before a long flight, people carried all sorts of things onto airplanes back then that would appall today's passengers.

I remember when they first installed metal detectors in airports. People protested, screamed about excessive security, etc. Now, people wonder why there was ever a time when there weren't metal detectors and searches before boarding airplanes. What used to be intolerable is now normal. Questioning it now makes you seem nutty, perhaps dangerous.

Have to wonder how the kids are taking it - we train them to never, never, never allow a stranger to touch those parts covered by a swim suit, then we take them on an airplane trip and hand them over to a complete stranger who then touches those parts they've been told to never, ever allow a stranger to touch and when the kids (as taught) protest the whole family might be punished. This is insane.

I'm worried about erosion to the answers given to the question "who has the right to search me, where, for what purposes, and when will someone actually get in trouble for demanding too many rights to search me too intrusively?"

I remember some years ago being in a discussion with someone about TSA searches. I stated that there was no way someone could to a "pat down" on me that included my breasts and crotch areas without feeling that my boundaries were violated and I'd probably want to shower afterwards. The other person said "but they'd have a woman do it! Why would you object to a woman touching you? It's not like there would anything sexual about it." They don't get it. I was raised that no one should touch you without your consent. The only exceptions were for medical personal (and even then, it would be in the context of an exam and only those areas absolutely necessary) or for convicted criminals which, presumably, one could avoid being if one tried hard enough. It's not about sex. I object to being touched by someone not family or a damn close friend. Handshaking is very public and acceptable contact (although I also remember when unrelated men shaking a woman's hand was of questionable propriety), boob shaking is not.

You know, when I was 15 or 20 I would not have had to explain that. It was pretty intuitive for anyone in the culture. NOW, though, not only does that require explanation, there are a lot of people who simply do not understand why anyone would object to a stranger touching parts of their body that a generation ago were absolutely considered private.

Erosion indeed.

Any privacy amendment would have to say something along the lines of a citizen's body being considered private and no one has the right to touch/violate it without consent, the exceptions being for emergency medical care, convicted prisoners, and those showing a safety-based cause to obtain prior approval from a court. It wouldn't avoid all abuses, but would limit them. Also, privacy in "persons and their papers" would not, as sometimes has been done, be limited to actual paper but would include ALL records regardless of what technology produces or holds them.

I get that there are degrees- a background check not justified for a job at a convenience store is justified for law enforcement, a search not justified when entering a museum is justified when entering a prison, there are huge differences there.

Yep. Something based on safety is probably acceptable. Testing operators of commercial transports for drugs has at least a safety rationale - drivers are safer went they aren't drunk or high. I do find it hard to imagine how a drunk or high stockboy stacking rolls of toilet paper on a shelf presents a danger to society, yet many jobs that are menial on that level require mandatory drug testing.

But I'm rather glum about the long-term trend, because it seems like a continuous process of stripping away people's right to move around and communicate with each other without large organizations making a big intimidating show of intrusive control physically, and without other large organizations making a quiet, unobtrusive show of making sure they know you better than you know yourself, for purposes of whatever-the-hell-they-like.

And objecting gets you labeled as either crazy or dangerous or both. Not only are you forced to submit, but you're not even permitted to dislike the process.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm worried about erosion to the answers given to the question "who has the right to search me, where, for what purposes, and when will someone actually get in trouble for demanding too many rights to search me too intrusively?"

I remember some years ago being in a discussion with someone about TSA searches. I stated that there was no way someone could to a "pat down" on me that included my breasts and crotch areas without feeling that my boundaries were violated and I'd probably want to shower afterwards. The other person said "but they'd have a woman do it! Why would you object to a woman touching you? It's not like there would anything sexual about it." They don't get it. I was raised that no one should touch you without your consent...

You know, I don't think anyone would ever ask a man the equivalent question...

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh LOL you didn't even get my point!

You said:

Things that, to me, are very clear - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches ... shall not be violated", "No person shall ... be deprived of life [...] without due process of law", and so on - very clear if you ask me, but apparently not to government power structure.

Don't try to backpedal, moron. That's a very clear statement you make here, and nothing else you say in your post tries to deny that this is your position, or clarify it in a way that could possibly mean anything else.

Assuming they don't fuck it up there in interpretation too, of course.

Your entire point is that you are railing against government officials for somehow misinterpreting a statement in the Constitution you find to be extremely clear. Which is exactly the stance that I called you a moron for. Because it is idiotic. Throwing a tantrum about me calling you out isn't going to change that.

[Sky Captain]

Problem is security measures usually get tightened after some idiot does or tries to do something stupid like blowing up plane with bomb hidden in his underpants or something similar and govenment agencies then step in and devise a new security measure that theoretically should protect against similar attack in the future. If there weren't such incidents then I guess there would be little security because there would be no reason for it.
I'm guessing next time when someone cobbles together a crude missile from off the shelf model rocket and model rc aircraft parts and tries to attack White House there will be push to ban or severely restrict those hobbies too.
What if someone brings down an airplane with a bomb sewn into his stomach? (drug trafficers transport up to a kilogram of high value drugs that way so if someone was very determined he could use the same method to get a big enough bomb past existing airport security)

[Broomstick]

I'm guessing next time when someone cobbles together a crude missile from off the shelf model rocket and model rc aircraft parts and tries to attack White House there will be push to ban or severely restrict those hobbies too.

The FAA is scheduled to release a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making in July regarding restricting regulating those very things, perhaps to the point of requiring formal licenses to fly them. There is no "if" about it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, model rocketry in the US is basically dead. There used to be some very impressive model rockets on the market with quite sophisticated function, even remote control flyback model rockets (rocket glider planes, basically). They're all gone now due to industry self-regulation to try and avoid outright banning by the feds.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thus, my answer is to spell out that it does apply to everyone, not just police, in another amendment, and stick to the same idea of "unreasonable searches" being the term to go to. Those two words have worked pretty well, in general.

Once again, dumbass, the entire point of my post is that "unreasonable" isn't as clear as you seem to think it is. All of you're railing against the wording of the 14th amendment does nothing to change this. I already demonstrated why "unreasonable" is not a concrete enough term if your mission is to clarify the wording of the law.

but hey with your reading comprehension and reasoning skills, maybe you're qualified for a job on the supreme court :<

Let's chart this exchange out, shall we?

You: "The government is stupid! We should use the phrase "unreasonable search" in all circumstances because it's clear!"
Me: "The term 'unreasonable' isn't really that clear. It's pretty vague."
You: "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT!"
Me: (restates your argument)
You: "YOU HAVE HORRIBLE READING COMPREHENSION BECAUSE BLAH BLAH BLAH 14th AMENDMENT BLAH BLAH BLAH (restates original argument)"
Me: (this post) "Again, the term unreasonable isn't really that clear. It's pretty vague."

Once again, as I said in my first post, the term "reasonable" is not all that clear. Unless you can demonstrate somehow that it is, then shut the fuck up.

There is tyranny in the United States today,

I guess I should invest in the tin foil market, with all the hats you be making.

and it isn't due to differing opinions on what is and is not "reasonable".

Congratulations! A strawman!