| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| The Mockery Of The 4th Amendment Is Complete |
| 2011-01-06 |
| A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled that a strip search of a male inmate by a female guard was unconstitutional. In a 6-5 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said the search of the inmate Charles Byrd at a minimum-security jail in Maricopa County, Ariz. in 2004 was a "humiliating event" that violated his rights. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a three-judge appeals court panel ordered Byrd's civil rights suit dismissed in 2009. But in its ruling Wednesday, the court determined that cross-gender searches of intimate areas violate the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches. Between decades of federal court decisions and the Patriot Act, there is effectively no limitation of the government's ability to search anyone, their communications, records and property, anytime, and in any way they want for little or no reason, utterly perverting the intent of the 4th Amendment. But it is *not* okay for an adult woman to look at an adult male's genitalia and buttocks while doing so, because that would "be unreasonable". No probs, that female prison guard can always get a job at the TSA... |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #11 The Constitution has been amended. It now begins "We the subjects of FIFY. |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2011-01-06 16:31 |
| #10 The Constitution has been amended. It now begins "We the subjects of the United States..." |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-01-06 14:17 |
| #9 I think the modern law is: The government has unlimited power to search and seize property from innocent American citizens. But criminals, foreigners, enemies, terrorists, government officials, and journalists may never be searched, except with the prior approval of a leftist judge. |
| Posted by: Skunky Angeack7024 2011-01-06 13:51 |
| #8 But it is *not* okay for an adult woman to look at an adult male's genitalia and buttocks while doing so, because that would "be unreasonable". They put on legal shows like this from time to time just to keep peoples' eyes on the wrong ball. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-01-06 12:23 |
| #7 The guy might not have complained if there'd been a happy ending. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-01-06 12:09 |
| #6 Well, some things never change. The 9th circus is still filled with black robed tyrants. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-01-06 12:05 |
| #5 Think about it In the context of the recent ruling on DADT. If the guard was male and the inmate complained becuase he percieved him to be gay, the Ninth Circuit Court could justify a hate crime conviction of the inmate. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2011-01-06 10:52 |
| #4 From the comments at the article so people in prison have more rights then free people going through airport security. Seriously folks wake up and see that our rights as humans are being taken away every day . |
| Posted by: Beavis 2011-01-06 10:22 |
| #3 ...oops, too many when's. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-01-06 09:52 |
| #2 What no 'friend of the court' brief by the federal Equal Opportunity Commission? Could be subtitled when "When 'Living' Constitution Interpretations Clash" |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-01-06 09:51 |
| #1 Its the 9th circus court. What did you expect? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2011-01-06 09:47 |