On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Florence v. Burlington that it was constitutional for states to strip search arrestees no matter what the nature of the offense.
But if one looks at the facts of the case, there is a much more troubling situation that appears on the horizon.
Albert Florence and his wife and child were on the way home when a New Jersey state trooper pulled them over. When the trooper runs a check on the car, it comes up that there is an outstanding warrant on Mr. Florence because of an unpaid traffic fine. However the outstanding warrant was an error and Mr. Florence had the paperwork to prove it. Mr. Florence showed the trooper the paperwork yet was arrested anyway. While in custody he was strip searched twice. Those are the basic facts.
What's so troubling, aside from the fact that the court said that it was constitutional to strip search anyone in custody, was the implicit agreement that anyone can be arrested at any time for any thing.
If a man can be arrested even when he has the paperwork showing that he shouldn't be arrested, what does that mean for the rest of us?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment