tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2852546497682225676.post4084078869802482414..comments2022-11-02T03:03:07.811-07:00Comments on Unseeing Red: The Strip Search Caserosebriarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02229537505859471832noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2852546497682225676.post-16722740962280707232012-04-04T10:37:15.272-07:002012-04-04T10:37:15.272-07:00Your quotation marks only face one direction!Your quotation marks only face one direction!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2852546497682225676.post-65193293493622633942012-04-04T10:25:24.394-07:002012-04-04T10:25:24.394-07:00I do think the concurrences limit the decision hel...I do think the concurrences limit the decision helpfully. But I do want to note that this is a strip search without reasonable suspicion that they have contraband, NOT that they committed a crime. The point is that committing a crime alone (or being accused of committing one) doesn't mean there's reasonable suspicion that they're smuggling something. <br /><br />And, I think the concern is not that the police will use this for "illicit purposes" so much as that they will be able to abuse the power just for power's sake, even when they don't actually have a good reason to search someone. Not that they need one, under this decision.rosebriarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02229537505859471832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2852546497682225676.post-86858849456615280682012-04-04T10:20:32.352-07:002012-04-04T10:20:32.352-07:00I see nothing wrong with this. Like Alito and Rob...I see nothing wrong with this. Like Alito and Roberts said, if the person is already being jailed, there is probably more than reasonable suspicion they committed a crime.<br /><br />If the problem is that the police might use this for illicit purposes, we all know criminals are generally icky looking. Thus, no fear of that and it is actually a disincentive to boot!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com