STRIP SEARCH FOR TRAFFIC TICKET OK SAYS SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that officials can strip-search anyone who is taken to jail , even for traffic violations. Under the ruling, all those brought to jail could be required to strip naked and undergo a "close visual inspection"(BODY CAVITY) SEARCH. At least 10 states forbid such practices and the American Bar Association said in a brief that international human rights treaties also ban the procedures. The suit stemmed from the case of Albert Florence, a man who was arrested in 2005 after his wife was pulled over for speeding in New Jersey. Florence was held for a week and strip-searched twice for having an unpaid traffic fine. It later turned out the fine had been paid. Every year, an estimated 700,000 individuals are taken to jail for minor infractions. Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, states that "today’s decision jeopardizes the privacy rights of millions of people who are arrested each year and brought to jail, for minor offenses."In a dissenting opinion Justice Breyer writes that "such searches are inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading," and cites instances of nuns, women during periods of lactation or menstruation and victims of sexual abuse undergoing such searches. He finds "no convincing reason indicating that, in the absence of reasonable suspicion, involuntary strip searches of those arrested for traffic tickets are necessary in order to further the penal interests mentioned. And there are strong reasons to believe they are not justified." Breyer's dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
The Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that officials can strip-search anyone who is taken to jail , even for traffic violations. Under the ruling, all those brought to jail could be required to strip naked and undergo a "close visual inspection"(BODY CAVITY) SEARCH. At least 10 states forbid such practices and the American Bar Association said in a brief that international human rights treaties also ban the procedures. The suit stemmed from the case of Albert Florence, a man who was arrested in 2005 after his wife was pulled over for speeding in New Jersey. Florence was held for a week and strip-searched twice for having an unpaid traffic fine. It later turned out the fine had been paid. Every year, an estimated 700,000 individuals are taken to jail for minor infractions. Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, states that "today’s decision jeopardizes the privacy rights of millions of people who are arrested each year and brought to jail, for minor offenses."In a dissenting opinion Justice Breyer writes that "such searches are inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading," and cites instances of nuns, women during periods of lactation or menstruation and victims of sexual abuse undergoing such searches. He finds "no convincing reason indicating that, in the absence of reasonable suspicion, involuntary strip searches of those arrested for traffic tickets are necessary in order to further the penal interests mentioned. And there are strong reasons to believe they are not justified." Breyer's dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
No comments:
Post a Comment