Heated debates can arise when Americans feel that their constitutional rights are being violated; especially when it is due to an embarrassing or needless situation. ABC News reported that one understood the full meaning of humiliating when he was pulled over, taken to jail, and stripped searched, transferred to another prison, and then stripped again. He spent a total of six days in prison. Apparently the man had just paid a fine that was overdue but when he showed the officer a copy of the recipe as proof, but the police officer's computer had no records of the event; the man later sued. Some Americans believe that unreasonable strip searches are unconstitutional while others believe that unreasonable strip searches are unconstitutional while officials believe that they are needed for the protection of others.
ABC alleges that in 1979 the Supreme Court ruled that strip searches were legal after contact was made with the outside; this was ruled for the safety of the security and prison officers. Yet, Courts that were lower in status added and ruled that the search had to be with reasonable suspicion. A reasonable search meant that there had to be a chance or probable cause that the other person was hiding illegal substances. In the past couple years; Courts have let strip searches be performed without reasonable cause.
The President and his administration have supported the prison and jail's decision when their officer arrested the man and subjected him to a strip search; after years of waiting, his case will be heard this year. The President's regime's analysis is that security for those involved in the prison system outweighs the rights of one person. LA Times reports that 14 million Americans are arrested yearly.
Some believe that strip searches should not be legalized for petty offenses and are outraged that strip searches can take place for these citizens who are not to be considered a serious threat. The New York Times also alleges that from 1999 to 2003, out of 23,000 people brought to prison for misdemeanor offenses, only one person was shown to have contraband.
Also, in Toronto, statistics show that 60 percent of arrests lead to strip searches. The Toronto Police Accountability Coalition (TPAC) told CBS news that according to Supreme Court ruling in 2001, these unreasonable searches were "humiliating" and "intrusive." In 2010, 31,072 people were strip searched compared to the previous year's numbers of 29,789. Also, 2/3 of the strip searches did not find any evidence of contraband found.
In Bell v. Turner, inmates argued that strip searches were a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The prison's defense was that strip searches were a necessary means of keeping illegal contraband out of the prisons, which could be a danger to others. The Supreme Court ruled in the prison's favor, reasoning that the invasion of personal privacy was lawful since the search was reasonable. Other Supreme Courts have reached contrary conclusions and ruled in favor at an appellate level.
In order for an arrest to be made, there must first be probable cause. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures. In order for a police officer to have probable cause they must have a suspicion that a person is about to commit or has already committed a crime. Similarly, reasonable suspicion is when a reasonable person could deduce that a crime was or is about to take place.
The TPAC believes that a level two search, also called a pat down would reveal illegal contraband without stripping down the detainee. Contraband is usually hidden in underwear or body cavities. The TPAC also believes that, should a level two security search be executed properly, there wouldn't be a need for strip searching certain individuals. They believe that a lot of times, those conducting the searches do it to humiliate the person arrested. Whether you believe strip searches are illegal or not, future trials will soon shape the laws. To find out more about strip searches, visit your local police site.
