Welcome back from Spring Break! While you were out having fun the Supreme Court was making new rulings. Read about their recent decision on strip searches in jail in Florence vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County and then answer the following questions on in your blog post:
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
1. The basic facts were that this man was being held because the police thought that this man had an outstanding fine to pay so they held him for seven days and also strip searched him. So, the man sued the county saying that his 4th amendment was violated with the unreasonable search.
2. The supreme court ruled that whenever someone is taken into custody the police have the right to search them without a warrant for safety reasons.
3. I agreed with that ruling because once you are taken in then you are officially in their custody and they should have the right to do whatever they need to do to make sure they are safe. So, this search is completely reasonable because of safety purposes.
summarize-A man was held unjustly for an "unpaid fine" which he had already paid. He was held in jail for six days and searched twice.
Supreme Court Decision- Decided that strip-searches are constitutional but encourages counties not to jail for fines.
Opinion- I agree with the supreme court. While strip searches can be incredibly unpleasant the possible contraband that inmates could bring in to jail has the possibility of being dangerous enough that personal privacy has no merit in these situations.
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
A man was being held in a jail for six days due to an outstanding ticket that was not paid. The ticket actually had been paid but there wasn't a way to prove it when your sitting in a jail cell. He was subjected to removing his clothes and getting stripped searched. He claimed it violated his right to privacy.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that strip searches are allowed and need to be done in prison and jail to keep everyone safe within the facility. Without strip searches people could easily use weapons and drugs within the prison or jail. To have the best interest for everyone involved strip searches need to continue.
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
I agree with this statement. The police might make a mistake every once in a while but for those that do commit crimes had their freedoms at some point in time but committing their crimes should automatically take away their rights. We should not be trying to make it easier for people that cannot obey the law.
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
The man who got arrested had already paid a ticket and was still put in jail for a six days and he was strip-searched.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court refused to halt routine strip-searches of new jail inmates.
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not? I disagree with this. I think that doing a strip search stupid.
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
-This case is about whether everyone should be stripped search when they are taken into jail. Whether they should not do it and just look at them or because they don't know how dangerous people are by looking at them, requiring a strip search for everyone.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
-The Supreme Court ruled that everyone should be strip searched because they don't know anything about the people. It would be safer to violate their privacy then to maybe have dangerous people in the jails and not know about it, even for a short time.
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
-I agree with this. It does invade peoples privacy but I think in this case it is more important to think of everyones privacy. You don't know anything about how dangerous someone could be by just looking at them. If they looked innocent but killed everyone, it would be more important to make sure that everyone is safe.
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
-You have to strip searched, even if you're in jail for only a few hours
-they do this to make sure that you are not carrying anything that would be harmful
-I can be a bit ridiculous if you're only int here for a traffic violations
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
-the supreme court ruled for the strip searches because no one knows these people close enough to trust they dont have weapons.
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
-I agree with the supreme court...unless i was that guy, i would be pissed
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
-You have to strip searched, even if you're in jail for only a few hours
-they do this to make sure that you are not carrying anything that would be harmful
-I can be a bit ridiculous if you're only int here for a traffic violations
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
-the supreme court ruled for the strip searches because no one knows these people close enough to trust they dont have weapons.
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
-I agree with the supreme court...unless i was that guy, i would be pissed
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
Florence was taken into custody for traffic violation that he allegedly had not paid, except that he had. He was then held in 2 different county jails for 6 days, both of which administered strip searches on him. He then sued both counties for violating his privacy.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court decided to rule only on whether or not strip searches in jail were Constitutional or not. They ruled that yes the searches are Constitutional because when in jail the safety of the people is more important than their privacy.
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
I agree with their decision because I agree with the fact that safety should come before privacy. However, I think that how the case went down was not good. I think that the police definitely violated rights, but once Florence was being held in jail, i feel that nothing wrong was done.
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
Albert Florence was taken to jail in 2005 because of an outstanding warrant, however he had already paid the fine. He was held in jail for six days, and was subjected to a strip-search. Florence sued the two counties where he was in jail for violating his privacy and subjecting him to a "humiliating" strip search.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court ruled that the jails could continue to do the strip searches.
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
I agree with the decision because I think it will ensure the safety of the law enforcement officers and other inmates.
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
-They arrested this guy for not paying his traffic ticket. He did actually pay it but they held him in jail for 7 days and strip search him.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
-The Supreme Court ruled that people should be strip searched because you may be hiding something. They think that since you are in jail they have the right to do that to you since your there in the first place. They also caught the Oklahoma City bomber by taking him in for a traffic violation.
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
-I don't think they should be able to if they din't have a cause to. Since he was in there for something so dumb like a traffic violation he shouldn't have been searched. He had no immediate threat or anything so why search him for no reason?
Albert Florence was stopped for a ticket violation that he had already payed in full but that the officer was unaware of. Florence was sent to county jail for 6 days and during these days was required to remove his clothing and undergo a "visual examination". After being released from the jail, Florence sued the county for unreasonable search and invasion of privacy. The court ruled that the safety of the facility and the people inside are more important than the individual privacy of the inmates no matter what the severity of their crime. Personally i believe that the decision whether one goes through a naked search or not depends on the severity of your crime. Not only on the severity but on the type of crime you commit. For instance a man who is charged for running a red light and then found to have minor unpaid tickets shouldn't have to go through the same thing as a man who is waiting in jail after they had just committed a robbery or just done a murder. If your crime indicates that you are a potential danger or indicates that you may be in contact with dangerous things then you may be subject to continuous searches.
1.
A man named Albert Florence was arrested and taken to jail because of a warrant. What the police didn't know was that he already paid his "unpaid" fine. They held him in jail for 6 days. They gave him an humiliating strip-search. He sued the two counties for violating his privacy, when he did nothing wrong.
2.
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no halt to routine strip-searches of new jail inmates, including those for minor offenses.
3.
I don't agree with their decision because I think that a innocent man having to go through a strip-search is embarrassing and shouldn't be allowed.
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
What happened was in 2005 Albert Florence was pulled over by a New Jersey state trooper and the state trooper saw he had an outstanding warrant, even though he had already paid it. But later he was arrested and taken into custody and held for six days, where during those six days he was strip searched twice. He later sued both counties and went to the supreme court to say that his 4th Amendment Right was violated.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
In favor of Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
No because this wasn't some big drug dealer or Murderer where he might be very dangerous this was a man who had an outstanding parking ticket, that he already paid for too.He shouldn't have been strip searched and it was unlawful to do so.
1. Summarize the basic facts of the case.
Guy gets pulled over. He has an "outstanding" ticket. He is arrested and taken to jail. He is strip searched and held for six days.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
That there are too many people going to jail to and it would not be cool to have a law that let strip sreaches happen just because someone looks dangerous
3. Do you agree or disagree with their decision? Why or why not?
tough call. I don't think strip searches are cool for innocent people, but jails also need to be as safe as possible. So id side with the court
Post a Comment