Cross-sex strip searches ruled unconstitutional (case from Joe Arpaio policy)

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(01-05) 18:05 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A female jail guard's strip search of a male inmate was a "humiliating event" that violated his rights, a divided federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday.

Such searches of a prisoner by a guard of the opposite sex are unconstitutional except in an emergency, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 6-5 decision.

The ruling, in a case from Arizona, sets standards for nine Western states, including California. Dissenting judges said the court was improperly second-guessing jail officials.

(snip)

The inmate, Charles Byrd, was in Maricopa County's minimum-security jail awaiting trial in October 2004 when officials ordered searches of everyone in his unit after a series of fights.

Byrd was ordered to strip down to his shorts - colored pink, as required for all inmates by Joe Arpaio, the county's hard-line sheriff - and was searched by a female cadet from a training academy. She said she had taken no more than 20 seconds, while Byrd estimated the time at a minute. No contraband was found.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/05/BAGE1H4PU4.DTL

I'm not sure that's a good idea.

Or not allowing prisons to be for profit, take your choice.

Not that I'm any fan of what goes on in prisons in general, but I'll take "get rid of for profit jails" for $100, Alex

I agree about for profit prisons, but this did not happen at one.

And forcing him to be strip searched in front of all the people he put away?

Yes, please.

But when Arpaio goes down it's likely to be on federal charges, so he wouldn't end up in the Maricopa County jails. No pink undies, living in a tent up to 130 degrees in Summer, peddling a stationary bike to watch TV, working on a chain gang to get out of solitary, or having to eat the cheap slop he serves for meals may not be poetic justice. But in his case, I'd settle for just plain justice.

I just want him to be taken out of law enforcement. He's a public embarrassment.

with the smallest fingers.

what strip search is not humiliating?

in this case that she had the smallest fingers. ;)

I found this reasoning in the article:

""The right to be free from strip searches and degrading body inspections is ... basic to the concept of privacy," Judge Johnnie Rawlinson said in the majority opinion, quoting an earlier ruling."

Who has the right to privacy in a prison? Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

but there was once prison "reform" -- see Alger Hiss, Nixon's prime liberal enemy --

and certainly prisoner's should have rights --

Let's remember as well, that finally most prisoners are RELEASED --

almost a half million every year. What condition do you want them to be in when

they are released back into society?



"Beware of those with a strong urge to punish!"

But that doesn't mean that your are stripped of your rights entirely. The right to have your most intimate areas as private as possible still exists. So, while strip searches are constitutional, adding the insult/injury of having your junk searched by a member of the opposite sex for no good reason is not. Note that the judge stated that this rule gives way in case of emergency or exigent circumstances. But those circumstances were not present in this case.

A person engaged in covert advertising

The event is almost CERTAINLY recorded on video. Why should there even BE an argument as to how long it took?

Maybe asexual individuals?

that must be a tough stinky job.