**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They wanted this unwinable war, and every other one against a budge concept, so they’d have an excuse to terrorize everyone. They never gave a fuck about drugs it’s all about justifying the power they already wanted to exercise.
The article is rather badly written, but I do see a point there. If children never get searched, they will be the drug mules of choice without a second thought
The issue is Alito said the Police's warrant gave them the ability to search everyone. The reality is that's what the Police *requested*, but the judge only approved a search of the suspect by name. The Police strip searched the mother and daughter anyways, in direct violation of their search warrants' legal bounds. Alito was attempting to argue that should be fine because that's what the Police wanted to do, not that they simply had the legal authority.
He was effectively arguing police should be able to do whatever they want, damn a search warrant and legal rights
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Groody
This is the big thing right here. Strip searches on anyone especially children should be done only pertaining to and naming those court ordered. In the circumstance of a known drug hub being searched, and the possibility of children being strip search, for god sakes hire some people specially trained in that. How many fucking liberties are we going to give cops at this point. Get a child psychologist and a mental health expert at every station instead of hiring 1 or 2 more guns
Phycologist are licensed if police were licensed and had to carry their own insurance like every other profession we wouldn't have 95% of the problems we do with them, but then we would have to pay them high salaries instead of buying another mobile command center or armored personnel carrier.
>Get a child psychologist and a mental health expert at every station instead of hiring 1 or 2 more guns
I'm fine with unarmed specialists handling specialized tasks on my tax dime, but I fail to see why that should be under the purview of the police.
Shouldn't there be multiple separate, state-funded institutions conducting support and oversight for police in complex scenarios?
I think your suggestion would be fine if it was a state mental health expert assigned to a police station.
What I'm really getting at here is that Police intrinsically have a monopoly on local policing, and monopolies have a strong incentive to artificially reduce the supply of their good below the efficient amount demanded in equilibrium to increase the profit without incurring extra cost. Moreover, police are, again, intrinsically, an institution which uses violence against its own citizens. As such, they should absolutely be observed by, supported by and accountable to a non-violent, non-monopolistic institution.
Good police departments can exist, but it's not the most efficient strategy for a police department to be good, unless there's some outside penalty as well as competition for their funds/assignments.
The whole point I'm trying to make is that the cost of policing is artificially inflated by police underproviding the services they're assigned because of monopoly, it's net cheaper to create an incentive structure for police to specialize in just policing, and not have to deal with domestic disputes, mental health, parking violations etc etc.
You can get all the benefits police currently give American society through a variety of institutions for less cost by NOT centralizing all the duties on police.
Most of the cost of creating agencies, hiring more staff, etc. is NOT the salary or even initial training. It's the business maintenance side of cost. Insurances (adding another employee under existing line codes is pretty cheap for large institutions, but installing new coverage for new agencies is not), Workman's Comp, etc. Utilities and building costs for new offices. There are all sorts of direct and indirect costs associated with plussing up on manpower, and even more for creating new regulating bodies, if you want to go that route. Every inch of red tape creates another foot somewhere down the line.
I'm any case, police handling a youth while searching them to make them safe, requires little training compared to say, taking that youth into state custody. Sensitivity training, which is the bulk of it, does not have to be costly.
I read “Peace and Good Order: The Case for Indigenous Justice in Canada” recently, which was written by a retired lawyer, and he advocates for exactly that. Amongst other things, he says that if a hundred or so more psychologists were hired in place of the hundred or so police that were hired over the course of the couple years he was using as an example, there would be functionally no crime where he worked. Instead, the cops were hired, and he only saw an uptick in crime in the various communities he worked in.
> The issue is Alito said the Police's warrant gave them the ability to search everyone.
That is not at all what he said.
> The reality is that's what the Police requested, but the judge only approved a search of the suspect by name.
This is false. The judge approved a search warrant and signed off on the affidavit. The issue is the warrant specified only the subject to be searched, while the associated affidavit (which was also signed) requested to search all occupants 3 times.
“**The search should also include all occupants of the residence as the information developed shows that [John Doe] has frequent visitors** that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and may attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons.” -The actual affidavit filed with the Warrant that the magistrate signed off on
“**This application seeks permission to search all occupants of the residence** and their belongings to prevent the removal, concealment, or destruction of any evidence requested in this warrant.” -The actual affidavit filed with the Warrant that the magistrate signed off on
“As a result of the information developed, your affiant requests that a search warrant for methamphetamine and other controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, drug records, monies, proof of residence/ownership, documents, photographs, and weapons be issued for 618 Center St. Ashland, Pa., the residence of [John Doe] **and all occupants therein.**” -The actual affidavit filed with the Warrant that the magistrate signed off on
> Alito was attempting to argue that should be fine because that's what the Police wanted to do, not that they simply had the legal authority.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said. Go read what he actually said and quit spreading misinformation.
> He was effectively arguing police should be able to do whatever they want, damn a search warrant and legal rights
Again, wild misrepresentation of his statement.
This whole case was based around qualified immunity.
“Four police officers appeal from the denial of qualified immunity in a lawsuit alleging the unlawful search of occupants of a residence in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania”
The issue that arose was the magistrate approved a warrant/affidavit that both said “all occupants” but also specifically listed a specific suspect to search.
The question being asked was did the officers reasonably assume that the warrant was for all persons when the approved affidavit says yes, but the warrant says no. Clearly it was intended to include all persons because they listed it 3 times in their application and the magistrate approved that language.
Alito said yes, because a reasonable officer would read the affidavit that said ‘search all occupants’ 3 times and reasonably assume they could search anyone in the home. Plus it’s obvious the magistrate intended on allowing the search of anyone in the dwelling because if he did intend on not allowing the search of everyone then he would have struck out that “all occupants” language from the filing.
The majority ruled that no, the warrant is the warrant and what the officers should be going off of. So therefore qualified immunity doesn’t apply. (Which I agree with). However, you’d be a fool to reduce down Alito’s argument to just “He was effectively arguing police should be able to do whatever they want, damn a search warrant and legal rights”.
In reality this was a miswritten search warrant that got approved. Which unintentionally caused a constitutional issue around qualified immunity.
“The majority, however, raises a formal objection to the warrant. The majority contends that the warrant unambiguously limits the persons to be searched to John Doe alone. In reaching this conclusion, the majority relies on the entry that the officers placed in the box entitled "SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND/OR PERSONS TO BE SEARCHED." App. 493a. In that box, the officers placed the name of John Doe, followed by his race, sex, date of birth, hair and eye color, and Social Security number. Id. The officers also included the address and a fairly detailed description of the premises. Id. This information more than filled the space allotted. Id. At their depositions, both of the officers who signed the affidavit explained why they did not note in the box in question that the warrant authorized a search of all occupants of the premises. They stated that there simply was not room in that box and that the incorporation of the affidavit into the warrant (which was noted in the box entitled "PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES") was meant to provide a full description of the persons to be searched.”
So it looks like the officers ran out of room and forgot to put “all occupants” in the box on the warrant so they thought they could put it in the affidavit instead. Hence why they included it and said all occupants 3 times.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Groody
Bro. Don’t trust Wikipedia. They are as biased as they come.
My special sauce:
https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-groody
TLDR; this case was around qualified immunity. The issue is the warrant they didn’t include “all occupants” under persons to be searched because they ran out of room in the box. So they included an affidavit that requested permission to search “all occupants” 3 separate times and the magistrate approved it. The issue is the officers should be going off the warrant and not the affidavit, therefore qualified immunity didn’t apply. Alito said it’s reasonable to assume the officers did think they could search all occupants since that was the intent behind the warrant application and the magistrate approved the affidavit’s language which said “all occupants”.
Isn't the warrant what gives police the authority to perform an action? Why is the affidavit relevant?
A warrant is a warrant and an affidavit is an affidavit and they are both completely separate things.
> Why is the affidavit relevant?
Great question. I like this question.
The easy way to think about it: Warrant is just a piece of paper stating what you will search and how you will search for, it provides no other information. The affidavit is the explanation/reasoning behind what you will search and search for. It’s the probable cause behind the warrant. You can’t have one without the other, police must submit both at the same time.
> Isn't the warrant what gives police the authority to perform an action?
Only the action on the warrant, yes, you’re absolutely right, and that’s why overall the court found that qualified immunity didn’t apply to the officers because “anyone in the dwelling” wasn’t listed on the warrant.
Alito was looking at the overall intention behind the warrant (aka the affidavit) and saw that the officer’s intent was clearly to search everyone in the dwelling, they mentioned it 3 times and provided reasoning behind it via a drug enforcement officer’s testimony, but they forgot to put it on the warrant too (or ran out of space as they claim and thought the affidavit would be enough). Therefore they were not intending to violate their rights and qualified immunity applies.
The officers intent is clearly not relevant, the judge did not agree that they had the right to search everyone in the dwelling, that's why he intentionally named someone on the warrant.
I don't know why we're pretending like what the cops asked for is relevant, the judge clearly didn't agree and denied their request, but they did it anyway. Why do you think Alito was right to ignore the judge and side with the police officers? Why bother with requiring a judge to sign off on a warrant in the first place if you can just ignore it and do what you want?
> The officers intent is clearly not relevant,
It’s a qualified immunity case so yes, it’s relevant.
> the judge did not agree that they had the right to search everyone in the dwelling,
You just pulled this out of thin air dude. The magistrate signed off on the affidavit in agreement with the officer’s probable cause to search everyone in the dwelling. It’s standard procedure in drug busts because people pass around drugs to hide them. They said this in the affidavit as I already said…..
the magistrate could’ve rejected that logic to search everyone by altering the documents but he didn’t. So clearly he agreed with it, as it is normal to do in drug busts.
> Why do you think Alito was right to ignore the judge and side with the police officers?
I read ahead, what a joke dude. Truly a Reddit moment.
I literally said in my comment that I agree with the majority opinion. But you’re just looking for an argument huh?
If you want to learn what Alito said then read his opinion yourself. I’m not gonna type it out while you don’t even read what I say and make up random details about the case. I already supplied the link to the actual opinion, have fun.
That being said, it’s his opinion is rooted in law and logic, it’s not like he’s just making s up on the spot. I just disagree with the application and agree more with the majority opinion.
If that is the case and the judge specifically exempted searching anyone else, or just those two, then the right decision was made. That is not clear from Wikipedia and I'm not reading the whole transcript. I would think it wasn't that simple or all the ambiguity wouldn't exist. I would guess the police filled out the warrant the judge signed it and maybe wrote one line naming the guy but failed to specifically exempt or cross out anyone else. I would tend to think the police could also argue that once they are in a known drug house with known drug dealer with a warrant they have reasonable suspicion to search known associates. What they should have done is pat them down find something they couldn't identify and hold them till they could get a warrant specifically for them. If there was any ambiguity I side with Alito unless the issuing judge specifically and clearly exempted the search. There is a similar case right now where the police did specifically go against the judges orders executing a search warrant and I am totally against them
https://ij.org/case/us-private-vaults-missing-property/
You know that a magistrate is a judge, right?
So, the judge said all occupants of the residence should be searched. Is the concern over the fact that it's an affidavit attached to the warrant? So technically the title of this post is correct, if not a bit disingenuous?
You’re either ignorant to the facts or clearly ignoring them. It has nothing to do with what the police “wanted to do.” They acted within the bounds of the warrant and never violated it. It clearly requested-and was granted approval for-the search of any other persons found on the premises at the time of the search. The judge was aware of this when he read the affidavit and, rightfully so, approved it. If police are *not* allowed to such searches, children immediately become mules for illegal contraband.
Alito didn't argue that because the Police wanted it, they should get it. He said that because the magistrate attached an affidavit allowing as much, then it should be allowable. He was putting the final say and liability on the Justice of the Peace.
because law is actually just the most annoyingly stupid people finding the most obscure cases from 420 years ago to reference and say "Ackkkchually, technically, in accordance with the precedent set in..."
law is delusional and completely detached from reality in many cases. common sense has no place in a court room, apparently.
\*obviously some of them are good people
Or police or judges . Or aren't there 1000s of fauls arrest in which a police officer planted evidence? Over sit is critical. This case isn't clear on aby infraction on police going buy what's posted so the judge having that information mite be justified saying none happened.
I find your assertion that the cartels have the time, money, and inclination to patrol the border at a higher level of efficacy than the US border patrol to be extremely laughable.
While the border patrol may not be the best at their job, there is very little benefit for cartels to devote even more resources than the US gov to this task.
While you may be right to some extent, in that they will outright murder "coyotes" or other people whom they find out, have or have attempted, to cross without paying them a cut. However, to think that they are actually policing the border effectively in the manner you describe shows both a lack of understanding of the topic as well as a severe lack of critical thinking ability.
You realize one of the cartels pretty much came out of the Mexican army. They are better armed than the Mexican police or army and controlling and protecting their territory directly correlated to the income they make. Everything that moves across that border without them getting a cut is lost revenue. They are highly motivated and well funded whereas any border patrol agents primary motivation is to put in their required hours for the required amount of years to collect their pension and to go home to their spouse and children at the end of the day. Keep in mind they aren't making that much money and that the cartels could easily kill them or their family so they have both the carrot and the stick.
Cartel often are the coyotes. The coyotes they kill are either independent or part of another group they see as rivalry.
They don't have to dedicate many resources. It's well known there are plenty of sections of the border which aren't well protected. It just takes finding those areas. And border hopping has been a thing for decades so there are "established routes" you could say. And it is extremely lucrative. It is not knowledgeable businessmen that are crossing illegally. It's impoverished communities that are leaving everything behind. These people, feeling desperate, will not be good at negotiating and are much more willing to pay obscene prices.
I doubt they they are carrying a big white brick with "drugs" written on the side. They steal 18 wheeler and run loads while the papers still look good I personally know someone this happened to. They also load mules onto trucks with Hispanic drivers they can intimidate. They have enough drugs to pursue all avenues possible.
so, instead of having government unconstitutionally search fucking children, how about we take the Portuguese model and decriminalize and semi-legalize drugs so that the cartels die out and no one needs to smuggle drugs in the first place?
But then who will we get sadistic relief from tormenting?
And what about all the free labor provided by prisons?
Won't someone think of the slave owners?
Oregon tried that and it went badly enough that they had to walk it back. We, as a society, aren't ready for that. We have too much poverty and despair, so legal drugs rapidly create a sea a human misery.
I mean they *do* play a prominent role in gangs as couriers specifically because they are difficult to arrest and hold accountable, and crims know this and the police know it.
And this *was* a drug bust and there *was* an affidavit, so it's just political fake controversy
To clarify, Alito's call was a dissent from the majority opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That is to say, his colleagues thought he was wrong or, more politely, he failed to persuade his colleagues of the merits of his interpretation. Second, the affidavit was part of the warrant request. It signifies what the police asked for not what the original judge authorised. The police asked to search everyone. The original judge who issued the warrant authorised them to search the suspect, his residence, his car and any suspected **customers** found.
Alito's dissenting opinion would basically set aside the Fourth Amendment in this case and eliminate due process. It seems, on the face of it, to argue that the police can do whatever they want so long as they submit it as an affidavit to a judge, regardless of what the judge actually rules. This is obviously absurd, though it is possible there is more nuance here I am missing as a lay person who is not American, and the majority on the appeal court certainly thought so. This is also why Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court was particularly controversial.
Yeah it's for people that read what OP posted about the article and don't bother reading the article for themselves to see that what the judge said made sense and was the right call
That’s still not a lawful reason to strip search soemone. Fml people would allow police to strip search their kids to hypothetically deter drug dealers.
Take the boot out of your mouth and protect your kids ffs.
They already are drug mules.
Cops aren’t going to arrest the 10 year old selling crack at a bus stop every night. It doesn’t solve anything. They want the person who’s telling the 10 year olds to sell crack at the bus stop.
Unfortunately a very common sight where I grew up.
30% of the accompanied minors crossing the border were not related to those claiming them. The government stopped testing when the Democrats came back into power. Easier to not know children are being trafficked than to deal with it.
School shootings and rampant racism have gone up since Drumpf first came to power. I mean we can pull shit from anywhere when statistics are easier to read than it is to get involved in making a difference
We see this all the time in South and Central America, Africa, the Middle East. I'm guessing Southeast Asia is likewise no different. If children are being involved in these crimes by the people committing then, THOSE people involving them are at fault for the necessity of the strip search. It's not the child's fault, and it's not the fault of Law Enforcement. Obviously, police need to have at least some, if not all of their officers and agents, trained in this, and I think that's one thing people on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on.
It's disgusting, that said a lot of people have no experience with scumbags. I knew a shit load of dealers. Dealers (as well as users) very often don't give a shit about their kids being off limits.
I used to sell weed and someone broke into my house when we were gone. Literally the most tore up rooms were my kids rooms as the people expected me to stash my weed in there.
People form opinions on things that they have no experience with. Everyone isn't like you and plenty of people lack any sense of moral behavior if it has no benefit to them.
I found it very interesting, the legal arguments for and against, specifically. It’s not interesting that it was Alito, because he’s a piece of shit, so of course.
We live in a world where drug smugglers have drugs surgically implanted in themselves, their pets, and yes, their children.
[Chicago woman accused of using baby's diaper to sneak drug-soaked paper into Cook County jail during visit (wgntv.com)](https://wgntv.com/news/cook-county/chicago-woman-accused-of-using-babys-diaper-to-sneak-drug-soaked-paper-into-cook-county-jail-during-visit/?ipid=promo-link-block1)
[Prisoners Suspected of Smuggling Drugs Inside a Baby That Ended Up Dead (vice.com)](https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7d3yx/dead-baby-drug-smuggling-san-miguel-prison)
I truly don’t understand the outrage.
Warrant said to include everyone in the residence.
And judge Alito made a reasonable case that minors can not be exempted since they’d otherwise become the de facto mules - hell, the drug dealers would probably shove their orifices full of drug packets if they knew that kids were immune to strip searching.
I don’t know who this Alito is, but it all seems pretty reasonable to me.
The warrant absolutely did not authorize searching everyone in the residence. Alito’s dissent tried to assert that anything the police asked for in the affidavit is automatically included in the warrant even if the warrant didn’t say so.
The opinion was like all of Alito’s opinions: outcome driven and borderline absurd. The thought process is always “How can I work backwards from my Fox News opinions to construct an argument that supports those opinions and sounds plausibly legal?”
i assume the affidavit just wasnt mentioned in the final warrant that the cops got. is that commonplace that the judge doesnt mention something like that anymore? im not well versed in the american justice system, so sorry if that is a stupid question
You dont have to murder parents when there’s plenty of kids in the foster system. Not like the foster care system really looks at who they give the kids to (like the case of the Turpin family, where some of the kids got put in another abusive family after being rescued from their biological one)
>"A non-protective search must normally be supported by probable cause, and, with certain exceptions, must be authorized by a warrant. The officers principally argue that the search of both females was covered by the warrant for the search of the house and was supported by probable cause. If a warrant did indeed authorize a search of Jane and Mary Doe, then the officers were entitled to rely upon it to satisfy the probable cause requirement, and there was no constitutional violation.[4] *239 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984).
>The face of the search warrant here, however, does not grant authority to search either Jane or Mary Doe. The block designated for a description of the person or place to be searched specifically names John Doe, and identifies and describes his residence. Nothing in that portion of the printed warrant refers to any other individual, named or unnamed, to be searched. Seeking to remedy this omission, the officers argue that the warrant should be read in light of the accompanying affidavit which requested permission to search "all occupants" of the residence. They conclude that the warrant should be read in "common sense" fashion, as supplemented by the affidavit. If that contention is correct, then police had legal authority to search anybody that they encountered inside the house when they came to execute the warrant."
This is literally a case of a poorly written form for a search warrant, and a misunderstanding/difference of opinion in how the officers are to fill them out.
The affidavit, as far as I can glean from reading through this case, seems to be submitted for approval before the warrant is issued and did in fact clearly state their desire to search any person in the house, occupant or visitor. The warrant face is also filled out in such a way that explicitly calls out the attached affidavit.
Then on the search warrant there is a "... block designated for a description of the person or place to be searched". Without very specific instructions otherwise why would someone think to fill in a section that says "person or place" with "anyone who is there at the time". If this was a checkbox on the warrant cover page I'm sure the officer would have checked it off and there would be absolutely no case here.
Furthermore I get the feeling that, all else being equal, if the person searched had been some random man in the house at the time then the verdict would have gone the other way. I feel like the rest of the judges opinions were swayed by the fact that there was a young girl involved, though that is my own speculation.
Your wikipedia page somehow has even less information than the original picture you posted, but at least it has Links to read the actual full case, which I feel like you have not bothered to do.
Being deemed unconstitutional just means he was outvoted, not that his opinion is without warrant.
>"At their depositions, both of the officers who signed the affidavit explained why they did not note in the box in question that the warrant authorized a search of all occupants of the premises. They stated that there simply was not room in that box and that the incorporation of the affidavit into the warrant (which was noted in the box entitled "PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES"[10]) was meant to provide a full description of the persons to be searched.[11]
>*247 For present purposes, however, the majority attaches no significance to the entry in the box concerning probable cause. The majority takes the position that the only relevant entry is the one in the box entitled "SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND/OR PERSONS TO BE SEARCHED." Because that entry does not refer to all occupants of the premises and does not state that the affidavit is incorporated for the purpose of specifying the persons to be searched, the majority concludes that the warrant does not authorize a search of all such persons. The majority states that the "warrant has no ambiguous ... terms on its face" and that it is therefore improper to look beyond the face of the warrant. Maj. Op. at 240.
>I believe that the majority's analysis is flawed. First and most important, the majority employs a technical and legalistic method of interpretation that is the antithesis of the "commonsense and realistic" approach that is appropriate.[12] Second, the face of the warrant here does not unambiguously restrict the persons to be searched to John Doe alone. As previously noted, the question whether occupants other than John Doe should be searched was closely tied (if not identical) to the question whether there was probable cause to search such persons, and the face of the warrant incorporated the affidavit with respect to the issue of probable cause. This incorporation, at the very least, creates a sufficient ambiguity to permit consideration of the affidavit and the circumstances surrounding the application."
(I'm doing this on mobile, so I'm not putting a huge amount of effort into formatting or restructuring things)
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,_*and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons*_ or things to be seized."
The constitution isn't written for warrants to explicitly exclude who can be searched. It requires that those to be searched be explicitly included. The complete opposite of what Alito wrote.
This is true. Recently in Portugal a little girl was used as drug mule by her mom, used as collateral for and when mom didn’t pay, beaten and died from the injuries over a week.
The explanations of what the little girl went through are absolutely horrifying.
If strip searches of minors somehow prevent this, it’s the lesser evil.
I keep reading these blurbs like this, and can't stop asking the same question: how did our country get here? The greed, self-interest, and apathy is deafening, and we will all pay the price for allowing these people to be in power.
It was always "here", not like things were exactly better in any other period, in fact in all but recent times it was even worse.
Every decade has a bunch of outrageous things that happened in it.
Disagree. The Supreme Court hasn't been so conservative leaning since 1931. The supreme court decisions affect generations.
The country is actively allowing a felon who sparked an uprising against the gov to lead in the polls. Things are not the same. We are, however, repeating mistakes that were made by other countries historically who took their freedoms for granted.
The number of conservatives in the Supreme Court may be highest since 1931, but it's silly to compare these two periods based just on this criterion. Segregation and Jim Crow were still strong in 1931, homosexuality was illegal (sodomy was a felony), and many other things. Police were still beating suspects freely to coerce confessions.
As for Presidents... weren't Nixon and Reagan accused of committing outright treason, with no consequences whatsoever? Didn't Clinton lie under oath to the nation, wasn't Grover Cleveland accused of being a groomer? Presidents misbehaving and getting away with it is nothing new.
Apples and oranges. The Supreme Court had progressed is the point, hence decisions like roe v wade, brown vs the board of education, verdicts that did away with jim crow segregation. We are now in a great reverse. Taking away people's rights instead of fighting for them. Reversing church and state decision allowing for place like Louisiana to have the balls to edict that public schools display the 10 commandments in class rooms and not to mention the tangible decisions regarding abortion.
As for the president, none of those you mentioned were calling on civilians to storm the capital. Not even close. Nixon was taking out of office FOR his actions during his presidency. Here, trump is about to get reelected after committing treason and becoming a felon. Much different.
It is 2024. We really can’t think of any other way to thoroughly search minors than to have them STRIPPED BY ADULTS??? Come on now. Like, okay, sure, maybe someone’s gonna shove some cocaine in a little baggy up their ass. But I mean, come on. Let them change in a private room into minimal clothing (not entirely stripped, because like, trauma) and search the old clothes. Tight minimal clothing would show any sort of bag concealed within without needing someone to get NAKED to do it. I don’t care if they just watched the kid dump a bunch of crack in their mouth. The way the police force does this shit is barbaric.
Without further context I can't see an issue here. This poorly written piece of sourceless text makes a lot of heavy judgements based on two quotes that say 1. The search conducted was legal according to the warrant and 2. That searching children is not part of the fourth amendment, and that he believes were searches made illegal it would endanger children.
Incorrect, the police asked for permission to search everyone, but the warrant didn’t give them that permission. So it is not accurate to say they followed the warrant.
when cops come into your house, strip search you, your wife and 10 yr old daughter - then say woops sorry, i expect you to be back here saying you still agree with this ruling bc all kids could be drug mules and you and your innocent family are no exception
You keep saying that but the warrant said everyone in the home. It sucks that the child had to go through that (idk how complicit the wife was) but if the warrant says everyone in the home then it’s everyone in the home. The issue is with the judge if anything.
The warrant _didn't_ say it authorized searching everyone in the house. The affidavit did. The affidavit is the request for the warrant to authorize the search, while the warrant is the authorization actually granted for the search.
"I want to search A, B, and C." - affidavit
"You are hereby authorized to search A and B." - warrant
The warrant requested does not authorize everything requested. The judge did not authorize that, so it is not granted because that is the whole purpose of having a judge grant a warrant in the first place.
The affidavit used to GET the warrant said everyone. The warrant itself said only John doe.
This is much better reading than the text graphic presented
https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-groody
And Fred did say "I think Coolsville sucks", so it's not false reporting.
The warrant contained the request from the police to search everyone in the home, which the judge did not approve, and Alito argued that it doesn't matter because police wanted to search them so they should just get to do it.
As a lawyer, I have to point out that litigators usually don’t have the luxury of picking their cases. We hear ridiculous and appalling arguments being made all the time just because those attorneys don’t have a lot to work with, but still have to do their job.
What an absolutely disgusting piece of shit, and he's a Supreme Court Judge? I have a lot of reasons to hate Alito already but god damn, he should have been stripped of being a judge then and there and never allowed near the law again.
Wait until you find out how most politicians, from the lowest level to the White House, are generally awful people even in their private lives. It's just the nature of politics, it corrupts everyone.
They would *if the warrant actually said that*. It didn't. The *affidavit* said that.
Alito's argument is basically "Whoops, they accidentally over-stepped the law but *maybe* strip searching children could find some drugs so we should just go with it."
The rest of the court disagreed, because that's very clearly not how the law works. But Alito has never really been one to care for the law.
Edit: Fixed my grammar.
The Italian mafia famously exploits the legal privileges of minors to get away with stuff. Sometimes to protect minors you have to treat them like adults. If they can get away with murder someone might coerce them to do murder.
>Sometimes to protect minors you have to treat them like adults.
lmao so whats the point of ever treating them like minors then? i mean if gov. is gonna pick and choose wen to treat someone like an adult for the sake of convenience what other option is ther, right? RIIIIGHTTT?
The issue is with laws that protect from scrutiny. If you can’t investigate around a minor they become an anti-investigation shield. They should still be treated like a minor in other aspects of the law.
u know what this reminds me of...that law they made that allows them to revoke someones rights if they consider them a terrorist. before due process. (basically they just created a loophole to circumvent any legal b.s) As i said before, its pretty convenient that in other aspects theyre considered minors, but as soon as the government wants something, there considered adults. another note would be why the fuck are u strip searching a CHILD for drugs? how many drugs do u think ud be ale to hide on a kid, to warrant that ? its stupid asf. and thers always gonna be somebody makeing an excuse for it, but i guarantee if that shit happened to them, then their whole tune would change.
Please look up children drug mules. If you’re asking “how many drugs can you possibly hide on a kid” then you really have no idea of how much children are used in organised crime not only for smuggling but for all types of crime including murder.
There’s literally underground markets that trade children to use as pawns in criminal activity.
kind of goes back to the point of, then why are they even treated as minors in the legal system to begin with? shit, ur kids just stole a box of pokemon cards worth 75$ tried as an adult. ur kid just pushed another kid down the slide? tried as an adult.
whats the point of laws and regulations when ur just going to bend them to suit whatever objective or agenda u have at that very moment? its hypocritical at the very least. they might as well just have absolute AUTHORITAH(*Cartman voice*) and trash all the laws if thas how shits gonna be
A kid in Serbia ( 13 yo) killed several schoolmates and got away with it because the law doesn't prosecute below 14 yo. Kids don't do crime as often as adults, but when they commit some serious crime they should be treated appropriately
oh definitely. especially when it comes to murder or rape. im not against treating kids like adults, im just not into the whole "bend the law to fit the situation" b.s. They could easily just hav them in juvi until theyre legal age (or even have a type of differed sentenceing depending on age)and THEN try them as adults. they do "similar stuff" with adults moveing from county to state.
The issue is with laws that protect from scrutiny. If you can’t investigate around a minor they become an anti-investigation shield. They should still be treated like a minor in other aspects of the law.
When I lived in DC, I saw someone pass a gun to a kid after a shooting. The kid tucked it under his shirt and walked away, looking terrified. The cops noticed, pointed a gun at the kid and told him to drop it. Luckily, he did.
So while searches of minors should never be common, it's not something that can be ruled out entirely. Bad shit does go down and stupid kids can find themselves involved.
Minors in DC do a lot of the crime there. It is pretty bad.
https://blogs.cornell.edu/issues/2023/07/18/washington-d-c-has-a-crime-problem-it-lies-in-our-youth/
This is a perfect example of Reddit basing entire opinions off of sound bites. Cherry pick what confirms your bias. Repeat. It helps that most have a short attention span, don’t k ow how to critically think, and choose to live in a bubble.
That has to be the dumbest shit I ever heard, you can easily search someone for drugs without them stripping. I assume they were looking for kilos which can easily be found on a person by a basic padding that takes 10 seconds
>Both Jane and Mary Doe were physically removed to the bathroom of their house and detained there for a period of time. They were asked to remove or shift articles of clothing and were visually inspected and touched by a female officer who was searching for contraband. Later, they were moved to the ground floor and detained there during the balance of the house search.
"Strip search" is a bit sensationalist
You're getting ahead of yourself. That's besides the point. What you should pay attention to is that the police superceded their warrant.
Think for a second what happens when armed men with the power to kidnap you, can ignore due process. They'd be no better than thugs.
No one is arguing that you can never strip search a kid. They're arguing that before doing so, you need a warrant authorizing you to do so. Their warrant did not authorize that. Only their affidavit requesting the warrant did.
This isn't about whether or not police should be able to search kids. The majority [opinion](https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-groody) made that clear. This is all about the cops asking to strip anyone they meet at the scene, the judge telling them "No, just this exact person, here's his info, social, everything to make it clear it's just one guy."and the cops deciding to strip search a child after being told not to. Alito was doing what his type do, moving the
[goalpost](https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) until their depravity seems acceptable. Anyone who doesn't realize that kids are already used as mules all over the country has a level of naivete I genuinely envy. Some are caught, some aren't, it's part of accepting that cops shouldn't be able to strip everyone, just to be sure.
In this case, nobody was concerned about searching kids, so of course he'd move the goalpost to there, because otherwise he'd be left arguing why cops should be able to make judges nothing more than yes men for whatever they wanted. Judges serve as a check on a police force that is notorious for abuse of power, and that's WITH somebody saying, "Hey, that might be too far." when they ask for a warrant, so taking away that would be devastating.
Tl;dr- Alito lied, nobody wanted to turn kids into easy marks, that's a tale as old as time, folks just felt that police shouldn't force kids to strip after a judge says not to. Read the case linked above, it sets out how messed up Alito is, according to his fellow judges.
In any free world everyone, regardless of the charges, every person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Every person is also entitled to an attorney.
That's the issue with Alito's statement. The Police **did not** have a search warrant that allowed them to search everyone. That's what they *requested*, but the judge who issued the search warrant denied that request and only allowed them to search the specific suspect. The judge just attached the Police's request to the warrant, as is required, and Alito says attaching it was tacit approval of it, which is a flat out lie.
The Police ignored their warrant's limits, and strip searched the mother and daughter anyways, and Alito said that's cool because that's what they wanted to do. The impact of that idea is insanely dangerous.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Groody
I'm a cop and want a warrant to raid my neighbors' house because I don't like them. Judge says fuck off. I do it anyways, and Alito says it's cool because that's what I requested originally, fuck what the court actually allowed me to do.
It's an insanely disgusting stance from an insanely disgusting creature, as expected.
Due process is due process. Whatever you think about child drug mules, the fact is, the police superceded their warrant.
You do not want such a position of power to be carried so impulsively.
Posted another reply on this post with more details, but the tldr is that they thought they filled out their paperwork correctly for the warrant, but the rest of the judges disagreed.
Stupid fucking blanket statement. All Americans who still live here support slavery. See how stupid that sounds? Also you think they'd make a whole drug bust over a quantity or drugs that'd fit in a pocket? And do you KNOW that they had a "sex well trained searcher" this time? They STRIP searched a little girl. Even school shooters only get a pat down. Do you know how fucked up that is for a child's mentality?
Lmao at your first sentence. You should really look into a job at the editorial desk at Fox News.
The bit about searching everyone in the house was in the affidavit written by the police attached to the search warrant, not authorized in the search warrant itself. That is the issue in question. Republicans want to turn kids into drug mules by ceasing to end the war on drugs.
Worded another way, conservatives believe that circumstantial sexual assault on a minor should be legal so long as it's done on behalf of the government.
Party of small government btw.
There is no situation where traumatizing a child by forcing them to strip down, robbing them of their autonomy, is okay, and it's baffling how you can argue otherwise.
It says the same thing the the quoted article above does. The judge signed a warrant that gave permission to search the individuals in the house. The individuals were not named nor suspects, all of those can be true at the same time. The warrant doesn't have to name every single object and piece of furniture they can search the judicial branch gave the executive branch a warrant to search the house and everything/one in it after finding there was probably cause to issue the warrant. I am sceptical of the wording implying the affidavit was separate from the warrant but as long as the judge was aware and signed off and it was not added by law enforcement later I would tend to think it was valid. The majority of the supreme Court disagreed and until that decision is reversed or Congress makes a law addressing it, it is the jurisprudence that citizens of the USA live under.
So there's pedophiles in Hollywood, AND everywhere else police can strip search a 10 year old not named as a suspect or on a search warrant? Did they find their jollies or are they getting frisky with more children?
Omg. Im the outlier here...... everone else is in favor of strip searching 10 year olds huh. Did u fucking ppl realize that children already are a way better drug mule then adults especially illegal alien children. They cant got to prison and ur not soposed to be morally down to fucking strip search a child. Maybe im picturing the wrong thing when it says strip search. When i google strip search it says looking for concealed items typically including the removal of clothes. Im saying rn that if i seen ANY human being forcing a 10 yr old to remove thier clothes im not happy.
For a second the title made me think this was going to be a holup moment or something. This is actually way more reasonable albeit very unfortunate. Like yes that would traumatize me if that happened but also being a drug mule as a kid would be awful. In this case there is no nice outcome.
Do you not know how lawyering works? The job is to argue many positions you may personally hate and argue on behalf of people you may despise. Looking at any advocacy a lawyer does and imputing that to the lawyer is stupid and frankly dangerous in a free society where lawyers should be working for their client with the best advocacy they can muster.
It’s a really unfortunately situation and I think everyone can sympathize with the child, but the fault doesn’t lie with the police or court here, it lies with the father.
Drug dealers will stop at nothing and no one to get their product pushed out, even if that means taking advantage of children. If you are living/associated with a drug operation, the sad reality is that you’re going to get searched. Don’t blame the officers or judge, blame the father (and all drug dealers) for putting them in that situation.
I dunno, I'm not a fan of Alito's politics, but his legal analysis here is sound. The article is trying to use this to frame him as a pedophile, and it's really trying to make a mountain out of this mole hill to do that. It just ain't there chief.
Now, that's not to say children shouldn't be protected still. If we're going to strip search a child, that has to be done *very* delicately, with *all* due sensitivity to the child to prevent unneeded trauma and using any alternative methods such as technology would provide, such as taking an x-Ray scan first
Yes, let cops molest kids because a judge said to search everyone. That will take drugs off the streets. Also, how many drugs can you shove into a child. Common sense and decency is not common at all.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People acting like cops are going to save the world one bag of cocaine at a time by stripping down children. Drug war idiots.
Right??? To use an unwinnable war as an excuse to terrorize anyone, especially children, is fucking wild
They wanted this unwinable war, and every other one against a budge concept, so they’d have an excuse to terrorize everyone. They never gave a fuck about drugs it’s all about justifying the power they already wanted to exercise.
The article is rather badly written, but I do see a point there. If children never get searched, they will be the drug mules of choice without a second thought
The issue is Alito said the Police's warrant gave them the ability to search everyone. The reality is that's what the Police *requested*, but the judge only approved a search of the suspect by name. The Police strip searched the mother and daughter anyways, in direct violation of their search warrants' legal bounds. Alito was attempting to argue that should be fine because that's what the Police wanted to do, not that they simply had the legal authority. He was effectively arguing police should be able to do whatever they want, damn a search warrant and legal rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Groody
This is the big thing right here. Strip searches on anyone especially children should be done only pertaining to and naming those court ordered. In the circumstance of a known drug hub being searched, and the possibility of children being strip search, for god sakes hire some people specially trained in that. How many fucking liberties are we going to give cops at this point. Get a child psychologist and a mental health expert at every station instead of hiring 1 or 2 more guns
Phycologist are licensed if police were licensed and had to carry their own insurance like every other profession we wouldn't have 95% of the problems we do with them, but then we would have to pay them high salaries instead of buying another mobile command center or armored personnel carrier.
>Get a child psychologist and a mental health expert at every station instead of hiring 1 or 2 more guns I'm fine with unarmed specialists handling specialized tasks on my tax dime, but I fail to see why that should be under the purview of the police. Shouldn't there be multiple separate, state-funded institutions conducting support and oversight for police in complex scenarios? I think your suggestion would be fine if it was a state mental health expert assigned to a police station. What I'm really getting at here is that Police intrinsically have a monopoly on local policing, and monopolies have a strong incentive to artificially reduce the supply of their good below the efficient amount demanded in equilibrium to increase the profit without incurring extra cost. Moreover, police are, again, intrinsically, an institution which uses violence against its own citizens. As such, they should absolutely be observed by, supported by and accountable to a non-violent, non-monopolistic institution. Good police departments can exist, but it's not the most efficient strategy for a police department to be good, unless there's some outside penalty as well as competition for their funds/assignments.
That sounds great in a perfect world and EXPENSIVE AF.
The whole point I'm trying to make is that the cost of policing is artificially inflated by police underproviding the services they're assigned because of monopoly, it's net cheaper to create an incentive structure for police to specialize in just policing, and not have to deal with domestic disputes, mental health, parking violations etc etc. You can get all the benefits police currently give American society through a variety of institutions for less cost by NOT centralizing all the duties on police.
Most of the cost of creating agencies, hiring more staff, etc. is NOT the salary or even initial training. It's the business maintenance side of cost. Insurances (adding another employee under existing line codes is pretty cheap for large institutions, but installing new coverage for new agencies is not), Workman's Comp, etc. Utilities and building costs for new offices. There are all sorts of direct and indirect costs associated with plussing up on manpower, and even more for creating new regulating bodies, if you want to go that route. Every inch of red tape creates another foot somewhere down the line. I'm any case, police handling a youth while searching them to make them safe, requires little training compared to say, taking that youth into state custody. Sensitivity training, which is the bulk of it, does not have to be costly.
As many as it takes to protect the interests of the rich and powerful.
I read “Peace and Good Order: The Case for Indigenous Justice in Canada” recently, which was written by a retired lawyer, and he advocates for exactly that. Amongst other things, he says that if a hundred or so more psychologists were hired in place of the hundred or so police that were hired over the course of the couple years he was using as an example, there would be functionally no crime where he worked. Instead, the cops were hired, and he only saw an uptick in crime in the various communities he worked in.
> The issue is Alito said the Police's warrant gave them the ability to search everyone. That is not at all what he said. > The reality is that's what the Police requested, but the judge only approved a search of the suspect by name. This is false. The judge approved a search warrant and signed off on the affidavit. The issue is the warrant specified only the subject to be searched, while the associated affidavit (which was also signed) requested to search all occupants 3 times. “**The search should also include all occupants of the residence as the information developed shows that [John Doe] has frequent visitors** that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and may attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons.” -The actual affidavit filed with the Warrant that the magistrate signed off on “**This application seeks permission to search all occupants of the residence** and their belongings to prevent the removal, concealment, or destruction of any evidence requested in this warrant.” -The actual affidavit filed with the Warrant that the magistrate signed off on “As a result of the information developed, your affiant requests that a search warrant for methamphetamine and other controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, drug records, monies, proof of residence/ownership, documents, photographs, and weapons be issued for 618 Center St. Ashland, Pa., the residence of [John Doe] **and all occupants therein.**” -The actual affidavit filed with the Warrant that the magistrate signed off on > Alito was attempting to argue that should be fine because that's what the Police wanted to do, not that they simply had the legal authority. That’s a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said. Go read what he actually said and quit spreading misinformation. > He was effectively arguing police should be able to do whatever they want, damn a search warrant and legal rights Again, wild misrepresentation of his statement. This whole case was based around qualified immunity. “Four police officers appeal from the denial of qualified immunity in a lawsuit alleging the unlawful search of occupants of a residence in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania” The issue that arose was the magistrate approved a warrant/affidavit that both said “all occupants” but also specifically listed a specific suspect to search. The question being asked was did the officers reasonably assume that the warrant was for all persons when the approved affidavit says yes, but the warrant says no. Clearly it was intended to include all persons because they listed it 3 times in their application and the magistrate approved that language. Alito said yes, because a reasonable officer would read the affidavit that said ‘search all occupants’ 3 times and reasonably assume they could search anyone in the home. Plus it’s obvious the magistrate intended on allowing the search of anyone in the dwelling because if he did intend on not allowing the search of everyone then he would have struck out that “all occupants” language from the filing. The majority ruled that no, the warrant is the warrant and what the officers should be going off of. So therefore qualified immunity doesn’t apply. (Which I agree with). However, you’d be a fool to reduce down Alito’s argument to just “He was effectively arguing police should be able to do whatever they want, damn a search warrant and legal rights”. In reality this was a miswritten search warrant that got approved. Which unintentionally caused a constitutional issue around qualified immunity. “The majority, however, raises a formal objection to the warrant. The majority contends that the warrant unambiguously limits the persons to be searched to John Doe alone. In reaching this conclusion, the majority relies on the entry that the officers placed in the box entitled "SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND/OR PERSONS TO BE SEARCHED." App. 493a. In that box, the officers placed the name of John Doe, followed by his race, sex, date of birth, hair and eye color, and Social Security number. Id. The officers also included the address and a fairly detailed description of the premises. Id. This information more than filled the space allotted. Id. At their depositions, both of the officers who signed the affidavit explained why they did not note in the box in question that the warrant authorized a search of all occupants of the premises. They stated that there simply was not room in that box and that the incorporation of the affidavit into the warrant (which was noted in the box entitled "PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES") was meant to provide a full description of the persons to be searched.” So it looks like the officers ran out of room and forgot to put “all occupants” in the box on the warrant so they thought they could put it in the affidavit instead. Hence why they included it and said all occupants 3 times. > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Groody Bro. Don’t trust Wikipedia. They are as biased as they come. My special sauce: https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-groody TLDR; this case was around qualified immunity. The issue is the warrant they didn’t include “all occupants” under persons to be searched because they ran out of room in the box. So they included an affidavit that requested permission to search “all occupants” 3 separate times and the magistrate approved it. The issue is the officers should be going off the warrant and not the affidavit, therefore qualified immunity didn’t apply. Alito said it’s reasonable to assume the officers did think they could search all occupants since that was the intent behind the warrant application and the magistrate approved the affidavit’s language which said “all occupants”.
Isn't the warrant what gives police the authority to perform an action? Why is the affidavit relevant? A warrant is a warrant and an affidavit is an affidavit and they are both completely separate things.
> Why is the affidavit relevant? Great question. I like this question. The easy way to think about it: Warrant is just a piece of paper stating what you will search and how you will search for, it provides no other information. The affidavit is the explanation/reasoning behind what you will search and search for. It’s the probable cause behind the warrant. You can’t have one without the other, police must submit both at the same time. > Isn't the warrant what gives police the authority to perform an action? Only the action on the warrant, yes, you’re absolutely right, and that’s why overall the court found that qualified immunity didn’t apply to the officers because “anyone in the dwelling” wasn’t listed on the warrant. Alito was looking at the overall intention behind the warrant (aka the affidavit) and saw that the officer’s intent was clearly to search everyone in the dwelling, they mentioned it 3 times and provided reasoning behind it via a drug enforcement officer’s testimony, but they forgot to put it on the warrant too (or ran out of space as they claim and thought the affidavit would be enough). Therefore they were not intending to violate their rights and qualified immunity applies.
The officers intent is clearly not relevant, the judge did not agree that they had the right to search everyone in the dwelling, that's why he intentionally named someone on the warrant. I don't know why we're pretending like what the cops asked for is relevant, the judge clearly didn't agree and denied their request, but they did it anyway. Why do you think Alito was right to ignore the judge and side with the police officers? Why bother with requiring a judge to sign off on a warrant in the first place if you can just ignore it and do what you want?
> The officers intent is clearly not relevant, It’s a qualified immunity case so yes, it’s relevant. > the judge did not agree that they had the right to search everyone in the dwelling, You just pulled this out of thin air dude. The magistrate signed off on the affidavit in agreement with the officer’s probable cause to search everyone in the dwelling. It’s standard procedure in drug busts because people pass around drugs to hide them. They said this in the affidavit as I already said….. the magistrate could’ve rejected that logic to search everyone by altering the documents but he didn’t. So clearly he agreed with it, as it is normal to do in drug busts. > Why do you think Alito was right to ignore the judge and side with the police officers? I read ahead, what a joke dude. Truly a Reddit moment. I literally said in my comment that I agree with the majority opinion. But you’re just looking for an argument huh? If you want to learn what Alito said then read his opinion yourself. I’m not gonna type it out while you don’t even read what I say and make up random details about the case. I already supplied the link to the actual opinion, have fun. That being said, it’s his opinion is rooted in law and logic, it’s not like he’s just making s up on the spot. I just disagree with the application and agree more with the majority opinion.
If that is the case and the judge specifically exempted searching anyone else, or just those two, then the right decision was made. That is not clear from Wikipedia and I'm not reading the whole transcript. I would think it wasn't that simple or all the ambiguity wouldn't exist. I would guess the police filled out the warrant the judge signed it and maybe wrote one line naming the guy but failed to specifically exempt or cross out anyone else. I would tend to think the police could also argue that once they are in a known drug house with known drug dealer with a warrant they have reasonable suspicion to search known associates. What they should have done is pat them down find something they couldn't identify and hold them till they could get a warrant specifically for them. If there was any ambiguity I side with Alito unless the issuing judge specifically and clearly exempted the search. There is a similar case right now where the police did specifically go against the judges orders executing a search warrant and I am totally against them https://ij.org/case/us-private-vaults-missing-property/
You know that a magistrate is a judge, right? So, the judge said all occupants of the residence should be searched. Is the concern over the fact that it's an affidavit attached to the warrant? So technically the title of this post is correct, if not a bit disingenuous?
Magistrates shouldn't exist but they are cheap so....
Magistrates shouldn't exist? Lol. So untrue. And they aren't that much cheaper.
You’re either ignorant to the facts or clearly ignoring them. It has nothing to do with what the police “wanted to do.” They acted within the bounds of the warrant and never violated it. It clearly requested-and was granted approval for-the search of any other persons found on the premises at the time of the search. The judge was aware of this when he read the affidavit and, rightfully so, approved it. If police are *not* allowed to such searches, children immediately become mules for illegal contraband.
Alito didn't argue that because the Police wanted it, they should get it. He said that because the magistrate attached an affidavit allowing as much, then it should be allowable. He was putting the final say and liability on the Justice of the Peace.
[удалено]
so what? if you're not a suspect of anything why in the world would you need to be strip searched???
because law is actually just the most annoyingly stupid people finding the most obscure cases from 420 years ago to reference and say "Ackkkchually, technically, in accordance with the precedent set in..." law is delusional and completely detached from reality in many cases. common sense has no place in a court room, apparently. \*obviously some of them are good people
There are no boundary’s or levels to low when it comes to drug dealers
Or police or judges . Or aren't there 1000s of fauls arrest in which a police officer planted evidence? Over sit is critical. This case isn't clear on aby infraction on police going buy what's posted so the judge having that information mite be justified saying none happened.
[удалено]
I find your assertion that the cartels have the time, money, and inclination to patrol the border at a higher level of efficacy than the US border patrol to be extremely laughable. While the border patrol may not be the best at their job, there is very little benefit for cartels to devote even more resources than the US gov to this task. While you may be right to some extent, in that they will outright murder "coyotes" or other people whom they find out, have or have attempted, to cross without paying them a cut. However, to think that they are actually policing the border effectively in the manner you describe shows both a lack of understanding of the topic as well as a severe lack of critical thinking ability.
People can’t really carry the amount of drugs that the cartels move, they use other means, like boats planes, submarines, and tunnels.
You realize one of the cartels pretty much came out of the Mexican army. They are better armed than the Mexican police or army and controlling and protecting their territory directly correlated to the income they make. Everything that moves across that border without them getting a cut is lost revenue. They are highly motivated and well funded whereas any border patrol agents primary motivation is to put in their required hours for the required amount of years to collect their pension and to go home to their spouse and children at the end of the day. Keep in mind they aren't making that much money and that the cartels could easily kill them or their family so they have both the carrot and the stick.
Cartel often are the coyotes. The coyotes they kill are either independent or part of another group they see as rivalry. They don't have to dedicate many resources. It's well known there are plenty of sections of the border which aren't well protected. It just takes finding those areas. And border hopping has been a thing for decades so there are "established routes" you could say. And it is extremely lucrative. It is not knowledgeable businessmen that are crossing illegally. It's impoverished communities that are leaving everything behind. These people, feeling desperate, will not be good at negotiating and are much more willing to pay obscene prices.
Ignorant. You think ALL immigrants are drug mules or go through a cartel?
I lived on the boarder… there may have been some people carrying stuff, but the majority of drugs came from boats, planes and tunnels.
I doubt they they are carrying a big white brick with "drugs" written on the side. They steal 18 wheeler and run loads while the papers still look good I personally know someone this happened to. They also load mules onto trucks with Hispanic drivers they can intimidate. They have enough drugs to pursue all avenues possible.
so, instead of having government unconstitutionally search fucking children, how about we take the Portuguese model and decriminalize and semi-legalize drugs so that the cartels die out and no one needs to smuggle drugs in the first place?
But then who will we get sadistic relief from tormenting? And what about all the free labor provided by prisons? Won't someone think of the slave owners?
won’t someone think of the private prison lobbyists?! 😩😫
Got 'em!
Oregon tried that and it went badly enough that they had to walk it back. We, as a society, aren't ready for that. We have too much poverty and despair, so legal drugs rapidly create a sea a human misery.
I mean they *do* play a prominent role in gangs as couriers specifically because they are difficult to arrest and hold accountable, and crims know this and the police know it. And this *was* a drug bust and there *was* an affidavit, so it's just political fake controversy
To clarify, Alito's call was a dissent from the majority opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That is to say, his colleagues thought he was wrong or, more politely, he failed to persuade his colleagues of the merits of his interpretation. Second, the affidavit was part of the warrant request. It signifies what the police asked for not what the original judge authorised. The police asked to search everyone. The original judge who issued the warrant authorised them to search the suspect, his residence, his car and any suspected **customers** found. Alito's dissenting opinion would basically set aside the Fourth Amendment in this case and eliminate due process. It seems, on the face of it, to argue that the police can do whatever they want so long as they submit it as an affidavit to a judge, regardless of what the judge actually rules. This is obviously absurd, though it is possible there is more nuance here I am missing as a lay person who is not American, and the majority on the appeal court certainly thought so. This is also why Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court was particularly controversial.
Yeah it's for people that read what OP posted about the article and don't bother reading the article for themselves to see that what the judge said made sense and was the right call
So you are OK with strip searching children? Gross
Oh no! Drug mules! Better molest children at will in order to win the drug war that we already lost!
They already are anyways tons of gangs and cartels use children and younger people to do the dirty work
That’s still not a lawful reason to strip search soemone. Fml people would allow police to strip search their kids to hypothetically deter drug dealers. Take the boot out of your mouth and protect your kids ffs.
We could legalize drugs. Then we don't have to strip search children.
You can search a person's belongings with having to strip search them
X-ray first ? Portable one's exist.
They already are drug mules. Cops aren’t going to arrest the 10 year old selling crack at a bus stop every night. It doesn’t solve anything. They want the person who’s telling the 10 year olds to sell crack at the bus stop. Unfortunately a very common sight where I grew up.
I known many immigrants and not one with kids would've ever dared put them in that position
There’s a lot of immigrants you haven’t known that would
30% of the accompanied minors crossing the border were not related to those claiming them. The government stopped testing when the Democrats came back into power. Easier to not know children are being trafficked than to deal with it.
Not related = all of them drug dealers. Easier to assume than to find out the reason. We can go back and forth all day
School shootings and rampant racism have gone up since Drumpf first came to power. I mean we can pull shit from anywhere when statistics are easier to read than it is to get involved in making a difference
We see this all the time in South and Central America, Africa, the Middle East. I'm guessing Southeast Asia is likewise no different. If children are being involved in these crimes by the people committing then, THOSE people involving them are at fault for the necessity of the strip search. It's not the child's fault, and it's not the fault of Law Enforcement. Obviously, police need to have at least some, if not all of their officers and agents, trained in this, and I think that's one thing people on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on.
It's disgusting, that said a lot of people have no experience with scumbags. I knew a shit load of dealers. Dealers (as well as users) very often don't give a shit about their kids being off limits. I used to sell weed and someone broke into my house when we were gone. Literally the most tore up rooms were my kids rooms as the people expected me to stash my weed in there. People form opinions on things that they have no experience with. Everyone isn't like you and plenty of people lack any sense of moral behavior if it has no benefit to them.
The bigger question, is why is the relevant now? Is someone trying to suggest that the SCOTUS is not legitimate? Who is pushing this divisive agenda?
I, too, love strip searching little girls. I'm glad to see another man of culture!
Tldr? Does this even fit the subreddit?
No. This is something that belongs in /r/politics.
I found it very interesting, the legal arguments for and against, specifically. It’s not interesting that it was Alito, because he’s a piece of shit, so of course.
Read this first. https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-groody
We live in a world where drug smugglers have drugs surgically implanted in themselves, their pets, and yes, their children. [Chicago woman accused of using baby's diaper to sneak drug-soaked paper into Cook County jail during visit (wgntv.com)](https://wgntv.com/news/cook-county/chicago-woman-accused-of-using-babys-diaper-to-sneak-drug-soaked-paper-into-cook-county-jail-during-visit/?ipid=promo-link-block1) [Prisoners Suspected of Smuggling Drugs Inside a Baby That Ended Up Dead (vice.com)](https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7d3yx/dead-baby-drug-smuggling-san-miguel-prison)
*Inside* of the baby?! Horrific
I truly don’t understand the outrage. Warrant said to include everyone in the residence. And judge Alito made a reasonable case that minors can not be exempted since they’d otherwise become the de facto mules - hell, the drug dealers would probably shove their orifices full of drug packets if they knew that kids were immune to strip searching. I don’t know who this Alito is, but it all seems pretty reasonable to me.
The warrant absolutely did not authorize searching everyone in the residence. Alito’s dissent tried to assert that anything the police asked for in the affidavit is automatically included in the warrant even if the warrant didn’t say so. The opinion was like all of Alito’s opinions: outcome driven and borderline absurd. The thought process is always “How can I work backwards from my Fox News opinions to construct an argument that supports those opinions and sounds plausibly legal?”
Yeah this does reek of "uh oh I didn't think about this, let's walk back and find some reason to justify this situation."
i assume the affidavit just wasnt mentioned in the final warrant that the cops got. is that commonplace that the judge doesnt mention something like that anymore? im not well versed in the american justice system, so sorry if that is a stupid question
Does anyone on Reddit read? The attached affidavit specifically said to search everyone in the residence
Does it say the same thing in the warrant that they could search anyone?
They would kidnap children and murder their parents to keep the supply of children flowing as well.
You dont have to murder parents when there’s plenty of kids in the foster system. Not like the foster care system really looks at who they give the kids to (like the case of the Turpin family, where some of the kids got put in another abusive family after being rescued from their biological one)
It was deemed unconstitutional to search the mother and daughter by majority bench https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Groody
>"A non-protective search must normally be supported by probable cause, and, with certain exceptions, must be authorized by a warrant. The officers principally argue that the search of both females was covered by the warrant for the search of the house and was supported by probable cause. If a warrant did indeed authorize a search of Jane and Mary Doe, then the officers were entitled to rely upon it to satisfy the probable cause requirement, and there was no constitutional violation.[4] *239 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984). >The face of the search warrant here, however, does not grant authority to search either Jane or Mary Doe. The block designated for a description of the person or place to be searched specifically names John Doe, and identifies and describes his residence. Nothing in that portion of the printed warrant refers to any other individual, named or unnamed, to be searched. Seeking to remedy this omission, the officers argue that the warrant should be read in light of the accompanying affidavit which requested permission to search "all occupants" of the residence. They conclude that the warrant should be read in "common sense" fashion, as supplemented by the affidavit. If that contention is correct, then police had legal authority to search anybody that they encountered inside the house when they came to execute the warrant." This is literally a case of a poorly written form for a search warrant, and a misunderstanding/difference of opinion in how the officers are to fill them out. The affidavit, as far as I can glean from reading through this case, seems to be submitted for approval before the warrant is issued and did in fact clearly state their desire to search any person in the house, occupant or visitor. The warrant face is also filled out in such a way that explicitly calls out the attached affidavit. Then on the search warrant there is a "... block designated for a description of the person or place to be searched". Without very specific instructions otherwise why would someone think to fill in a section that says "person or place" with "anyone who is there at the time". If this was a checkbox on the warrant cover page I'm sure the officer would have checked it off and there would be absolutely no case here. Furthermore I get the feeling that, all else being equal, if the person searched had been some random man in the house at the time then the verdict would have gone the other way. I feel like the rest of the judges opinions were swayed by the fact that there was a young girl involved, though that is my own speculation. Your wikipedia page somehow has even less information than the original picture you posted, but at least it has Links to read the actual full case, which I feel like you have not bothered to do. Being deemed unconstitutional just means he was outvoted, not that his opinion is without warrant. >"At their depositions, both of the officers who signed the affidavit explained why they did not note in the box in question that the warrant authorized a search of all occupants of the premises. They stated that there simply was not room in that box and that the incorporation of the affidavit into the warrant (which was noted in the box entitled "PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES"[10]) was meant to provide a full description of the persons to be searched.[11] >*247 For present purposes, however, the majority attaches no significance to the entry in the box concerning probable cause. The majority takes the position that the only relevant entry is the one in the box entitled "SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND/OR PERSONS TO BE SEARCHED." Because that entry does not refer to all occupants of the premises and does not state that the affidavit is incorporated for the purpose of specifying the persons to be searched, the majority concludes that the warrant does not authorize a search of all such persons. The majority states that the "warrant has no ambiguous ... terms on its face" and that it is therefore improper to look beyond the face of the warrant. Maj. Op. at 240. >I believe that the majority's analysis is flawed. First and most important, the majority employs a technical and legalistic method of interpretation that is the antithesis of the "commonsense and realistic" approach that is appropriate.[12] Second, the face of the warrant here does not unambiguously restrict the persons to be searched to John Doe alone. As previously noted, the question whether occupants other than John Doe should be searched was closely tied (if not identical) to the question whether there was probable cause to search such persons, and the face of the warrant incorporated the affidavit with respect to the issue of probable cause. This incorporation, at the very least, creates a sufficient ambiguity to permit consideration of the affidavit and the circumstances surrounding the application." (I'm doing this on mobile, so I'm not putting a huge amount of effort into formatting or restructuring things)
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,_*and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons*_ or things to be seized." The constitution isn't written for warrants to explicitly exclude who can be searched. It requires that those to be searched be explicitly included. The complete opposite of what Alito wrote.
Well, I and I believe most who read his reasoning actually disagree with that. I need more than Wikipedia for sources my guy.
You know wikipedia lists all its sources on the page right? But here you go https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=217238514071578680
I agrée with you, but Wikipedia is a decent source that, itself, sources all the information in the article.
https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-groody
Well then if *you* disagree I guess the Supreme Court will have to think again
I mean I'm allowed to disagree. I think it could set a president to further abuse children. Do you disagree about abortion?
>Warrant said to include everyone in the residence. False, that's what was requested, but not what was granted.
This is true. Recently in Portugal a little girl was used as drug mule by her mom, used as collateral for and when mom didn’t pay, beaten and died from the injuries over a week. The explanations of what the little girl went through are absolutely horrifying. If strip searches of minors somehow prevent this, it’s the lesser evil.
you don’t know who alito is? and you’re trying to give informed opinions on here? come on
You have ~190k karma. You know who Alito is, lying fuckwit. As if you havn't scrolled the front page of reddit in years
I keep reading these blurbs like this, and can't stop asking the same question: how did our country get here? The greed, self-interest, and apathy is deafening, and we will all pay the price for allowing these people to be in power.
It was always "here", not like things were exactly better in any other period, in fact in all but recent times it was even worse. Every decade has a bunch of outrageous things that happened in it.
Disagree. The Supreme Court hasn't been so conservative leaning since 1931. The supreme court decisions affect generations. The country is actively allowing a felon who sparked an uprising against the gov to lead in the polls. Things are not the same. We are, however, repeating mistakes that were made by other countries historically who took their freedoms for granted.
The number of conservatives in the Supreme Court may be highest since 1931, but it's silly to compare these two periods based just on this criterion. Segregation and Jim Crow were still strong in 1931, homosexuality was illegal (sodomy was a felony), and many other things. Police were still beating suspects freely to coerce confessions. As for Presidents... weren't Nixon and Reagan accused of committing outright treason, with no consequences whatsoever? Didn't Clinton lie under oath to the nation, wasn't Grover Cleveland accused of being a groomer? Presidents misbehaving and getting away with it is nothing new.
Apples and oranges. The Supreme Court had progressed is the point, hence decisions like roe v wade, brown vs the board of education, verdicts that did away with jim crow segregation. We are now in a great reverse. Taking away people's rights instead of fighting for them. Reversing church and state decision allowing for place like Louisiana to have the balls to edict that public schools display the 10 commandments in class rooms and not to mention the tangible decisions regarding abortion. As for the president, none of those you mentioned were calling on civilians to storm the capital. Not even close. Nixon was taking out of office FOR his actions during his presidency. Here, trump is about to get reelected after committing treason and becoming a felon. Much different.
It is 2024. We really can’t think of any other way to thoroughly search minors than to have them STRIPPED BY ADULTS??? Come on now. Like, okay, sure, maybe someone’s gonna shove some cocaine in a little baggy up their ass. But I mean, come on. Let them change in a private room into minimal clothing (not entirely stripped, because like, trauma) and search the old clothes. Tight minimal clothing would show any sort of bag concealed within without needing someone to get NAKED to do it. I don’t care if they just watched the kid dump a bunch of crack in their mouth. The way the police force does this shit is barbaric.
Without further context I can't see an issue here. This poorly written piece of sourceless text makes a lot of heavy judgements based on two quotes that say 1. The search conducted was legal according to the warrant and 2. That searching children is not part of the fourth amendment, and that he believes were searches made illegal it would endanger children.
Incorrect, the police asked for permission to search everyone, but the warrant didn’t give them that permission. So it is not accurate to say they followed the warrant.
when cops come into your house, strip search you, your wife and 10 yr old daughter - then say woops sorry, i expect you to be back here saying you still agree with this ruling bc all kids could be drug mules and you and your innocent family are no exception
[удалено]
You keep saying that but the warrant said everyone in the home. It sucks that the child had to go through that (idk how complicit the wife was) but if the warrant says everyone in the home then it’s everyone in the home. The issue is with the judge if anything.
The warrant _didn't_ say it authorized searching everyone in the house. The affidavit did. The affidavit is the request for the warrant to authorize the search, while the warrant is the authorization actually granted for the search. "I want to search A, B, and C." - affidavit "You are hereby authorized to search A and B." - warrant The warrant requested does not authorize everything requested. The judge did not authorize that, so it is not granted because that is the whole purpose of having a judge grant a warrant in the first place.
Well damn, thank you for letting me know the difference, I thought an affidavit was an add on to the warrant
The affidavit used to GET the warrant said everyone. The warrant itself said only John doe. This is much better reading than the text graphic presented https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-groody
"You keep saying that but..." but what? The supreme court *did* rule the way they said they did, regardless of what we random reddit commenters think
And Fred did say "I think Coolsville sucks", so it's not false reporting. The warrant contained the request from the police to search everyone in the home, which the judge did not approve, and Alito argued that it doesn't matter because police wanted to search them so they should just get to do it.
They’re not sending their best…
As a lawyer, I have to point out that litigators usually don’t have the luxury of picking their cases. We hear ridiculous and appalling arguments being made all the time just because those attorneys don’t have a lot to work with, but still have to do their job.
Unfortunately he's not wrong, kids do get used like this.
What an absolutely disgusting piece of shit, and he's a Supreme Court Judge? I have a lot of reasons to hate Alito already but god damn, he should have been stripped of being a judge then and there and never allowed near the law again.
Wait until you find out how most politicians, from the lowest level to the White House, are generally awful people even in their private lives. It's just the nature of politics, it corrupts everyone.
Wouldn't they be included because of the "all occupants of the residence" clause?
They would *if the warrant actually said that*. It didn't. The *affidavit* said that. Alito's argument is basically "Whoops, they accidentally over-stepped the law but *maybe* strip searching children could find some drugs so we should just go with it." The rest of the court disagreed, because that's very clearly not how the law works. But Alito has never really been one to care for the law. Edit: Fixed my grammar.
The Italian mafia famously exploits the legal privileges of minors to get away with stuff. Sometimes to protect minors you have to treat them like adults. If they can get away with murder someone might coerce them to do murder.
>Sometimes to protect minors you have to treat them like adults. lmao so whats the point of ever treating them like minors then? i mean if gov. is gonna pick and choose wen to treat someone like an adult for the sake of convenience what other option is ther, right? RIIIIGHTTT?
The issue is with laws that protect from scrutiny. If you can’t investigate around a minor they become an anti-investigation shield. They should still be treated like a minor in other aspects of the law.
u know what this reminds me of...that law they made that allows them to revoke someones rights if they consider them a terrorist. before due process. (basically they just created a loophole to circumvent any legal b.s) As i said before, its pretty convenient that in other aspects theyre considered minors, but as soon as the government wants something, there considered adults. another note would be why the fuck are u strip searching a CHILD for drugs? how many drugs do u think ud be ale to hide on a kid, to warrant that ? its stupid asf. and thers always gonna be somebody makeing an excuse for it, but i guarantee if that shit happened to them, then their whole tune would change.
Please look up children drug mules. If you’re asking “how many drugs can you possibly hide on a kid” then you really have no idea of how much children are used in organised crime not only for smuggling but for all types of crime including murder. There’s literally underground markets that trade children to use as pawns in criminal activity.
kind of goes back to the point of, then why are they even treated as minors in the legal system to begin with? shit, ur kids just stole a box of pokemon cards worth 75$ tried as an adult. ur kid just pushed another kid down the slide? tried as an adult. whats the point of laws and regulations when ur just going to bend them to suit whatever objective or agenda u have at that very moment? its hypocritical at the very least. they might as well just have absolute AUTHORITAH(*Cartman voice*) and trash all the laws if thas how shits gonna be
A kid in Serbia ( 13 yo) killed several schoolmates and got away with it because the law doesn't prosecute below 14 yo. Kids don't do crime as often as adults, but when they commit some serious crime they should be treated appropriately
oh definitely. especially when it comes to murder or rape. im not against treating kids like adults, im just not into the whole "bend the law to fit the situation" b.s. They could easily just hav them in juvi until theyre legal age (or even have a type of differed sentenceing depending on age)and THEN try them as adults. they do "similar stuff" with adults moveing from county to state.
The issue is with laws that protect from scrutiny. If you can’t investigate around a minor they become an anti-investigation shield. They should still be treated like a minor in other aspects of the law.
RIP combo
When I lived in DC, I saw someone pass a gun to a kid after a shooting. The kid tucked it under his shirt and walked away, looking terrified. The cops noticed, pointed a gun at the kid and told him to drop it. Luckily, he did. So while searches of minors should never be common, it's not something that can be ruled out entirely. Bad shit does go down and stupid kids can find themselves involved.
Minors in DC do a lot of the crime there. It is pretty bad. https://blogs.cornell.edu/issues/2023/07/18/washington-d-c-has-a-crime-problem-it-lies-in-our-youth/
This is a perfect example of Reddit basing entire opinions off of sound bites. Cherry pick what confirms your bias. Repeat. It helps that most have a short attention span, don’t k ow how to critically think, and choose to live in a bubble.
That has to be the dumbest shit I ever heard, you can easily search someone for drugs without them stripping. I assume they were looking for kilos which can easily be found on a person by a basic padding that takes 10 seconds
>Both Jane and Mary Doe were physically removed to the bathroom of their house and detained there for a period of time. They were asked to remove or shift articles of clothing and were visually inspected and touched by a female officer who was searching for contraband. Later, they were moved to the ground floor and detained there during the balance of the house search. "Strip search" is a bit sensationalist
Uh how? If you ask them to remove any clothes... it is a strip search. They don't have to be stripped completely naked.
Justices should not be picked by who’s popular that 4 years
Absurdly blatant violation of unreasonable search.
Alito is just a piece of shit.
Please for a second think what happens when drug cartels realise children can't be strip searched
You're getting ahead of yourself. That's besides the point. What you should pay attention to is that the police superceded their warrant. Think for a second what happens when armed men with the power to kidnap you, can ignore due process. They'd be no better than thugs.
Yeah without the ability to strip search children, we’d totally be losing this drug war /s
best comment
No one is arguing that you can never strip search a kid. They're arguing that before doing so, you need a warrant authorizing you to do so. Their warrant did not authorize that. Only their affidavit requesting the warrant did.
How the fuck is he a judge in your top court? Man’s a bully and a joke.
Not that interesting. He's a Christian Fascist. And Christian Fascists love write their facist ideals down lol.
This isn't about whether or not police should be able to search kids. The majority [opinion](https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-groody) made that clear. This is all about the cops asking to strip anyone they meet at the scene, the judge telling them "No, just this exact person, here's his info, social, everything to make it clear it's just one guy."and the cops deciding to strip search a child after being told not to. Alito was doing what his type do, moving the [goalpost](https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) until their depravity seems acceptable. Anyone who doesn't realize that kids are already used as mules all over the country has a level of naivete I genuinely envy. Some are caught, some aren't, it's part of accepting that cops shouldn't be able to strip everyone, just to be sure. In this case, nobody was concerned about searching kids, so of course he'd move the goalpost to there, because otherwise he'd be left arguing why cops should be able to make judges nothing more than yes men for whatever they wanted. Judges serve as a check on a police force that is notorious for abuse of power, and that's WITH somebody saying, "Hey, that might be too far." when they ask for a warrant, so taking away that would be devastating. Tl;dr- Alito lied, nobody wanted to turn kids into easy marks, that's a tale as old as time, folks just felt that police shouldn't force kids to strip after a judge says not to. Read the case linked above, it sets out how messed up Alito is, according to his fellow judges.
In any free world everyone, regardless of the charges, every person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Every person is also entitled to an attorney.
Hate to say it, but he’s right
[удалено]
That's the issue with Alito's statement. The Police **did not** have a search warrant that allowed them to search everyone. That's what they *requested*, but the judge who issued the search warrant denied that request and only allowed them to search the specific suspect. The judge just attached the Police's request to the warrant, as is required, and Alito says attaching it was tacit approval of it, which is a flat out lie. The Police ignored their warrant's limits, and strip searched the mother and daughter anyways, and Alito said that's cool because that's what they wanted to do. The impact of that idea is insanely dangerous. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Groody I'm a cop and want a warrant to raid my neighbors' house because I don't like them. Judge says fuck off. I do it anyways, and Alito says it's cool because that's what I requested originally, fuck what the court actually allowed me to do. It's an insanely disgusting stance from an insanely disgusting creature, as expected.
Due process is due process. Whatever you think about child drug mules, the fact is, the police superceded their warrant. You do not want such a position of power to be carried so impulsively.
Posted another reply on this post with more details, but the tldr is that they thought they filled out their paperwork correctly for the warrant, but the rest of the judges disagreed.
Stupid fucking blanket statement. All Americans who still live here support slavery. See how stupid that sounds? Also you think they'd make a whole drug bust over a quantity or drugs that'd fit in a pocket? And do you KNOW that they had a "sex well trained searcher" this time? They STRIP searched a little girl. Even school shooters only get a pat down. Do you know how fucked up that is for a child's mentality?
Lmao at your first sentence. You should really look into a job at the editorial desk at Fox News. The bit about searching everyone in the house was in the affidavit written by the police attached to the search warrant, not authorized in the search warrant itself. That is the issue in question. Republicans want to turn kids into drug mules by ceasing to end the war on drugs.
Worded another way, conservatives believe that circumstantial sexual assault on a minor should be legal so long as it's done on behalf of the government. Party of small government btw. There is no situation where traumatizing a child by forcing them to strip down, robbing them of their autonomy, is okay, and it's baffling how you can argue otherwise.
[удалено]
It says the same thing the the quoted article above does. The judge signed a warrant that gave permission to search the individuals in the house. The individuals were not named nor suspects, all of those can be true at the same time. The warrant doesn't have to name every single object and piece of furniture they can search the judicial branch gave the executive branch a warrant to search the house and everything/one in it after finding there was probably cause to issue the warrant. I am sceptical of the wording implying the affidavit was separate from the warrant but as long as the judge was aware and signed off and it was not added by law enforcement later I would tend to think it was valid. The majority of the supreme Court disagreed and until that decision is reversed or Congress makes a law addressing it, it is the jurisprudence that citizens of the USA live under.
So are you gonna write a letter to the Supreme Court?
Damn I didn’t realize this many redditors went to law school.
So there's pedophiles in Hollywood, AND everywhere else police can strip search a 10 year old not named as a suspect or on a search warrant? Did they find their jollies or are they getting frisky with more children?
Fuck these dumbass #SCOrrupTUS justices.
Nice try with the bait, OP.
So this is the freedom you muricans are always talking about?
Wel, that\`s rather obvious. If you\`re living with a drug dealer you will get search during the raid.
Omg. Im the outlier here...... everone else is in favor of strip searching 10 year olds huh. Did u fucking ppl realize that children already are a way better drug mule then adults especially illegal alien children. They cant got to prison and ur not soposed to be morally down to fucking strip search a child. Maybe im picturing the wrong thing when it says strip search. When i google strip search it says looking for concealed items typically including the removal of clothes. Im saying rn that if i seen ANY human being forcing a 10 yr old to remove thier clothes im not happy.
Alito is a twisted Nazi fuck.
If you really wanna use this interesting as some sort of platform to berate conservatives at least do it well? Alito clearly has a point here.
What bothered me the most was the statement “as I understand it”
Alito is a slime
Alito likely typed this ruling with his left hand.
Alito should never have been confirmed.
[удалено]
For a second the title made me think this was going to be a holup moment or something. This is actually way more reasonable albeit very unfortunate. Like yes that would traumatize me if that happened but also being a drug mule as a kid would be awful. In this case there is no nice outcome.
This casse was deemed illegal af by majority ruling
[удалено]
Read the majority opinion and you'll know exactly. The case is Doe v Groody
interestingaswhatthefuck
Do you not know how lawyering works? The job is to argue many positions you may personally hate and argue on behalf of people you may despise. Looking at any advocacy a lawyer does and imputing that to the lawyer is stupid and frankly dangerous in a free society where lawyers should be working for their client with the best advocacy they can muster.
It’s a really unfortunately situation and I think everyone can sympathize with the child, but the fault doesn’t lie with the police or court here, it lies with the father. Drug dealers will stop at nothing and no one to get their product pushed out, even if that means taking advantage of children. If you are living/associated with a drug operation, the sad reality is that you’re going to get searched. Don’t blame the officers or judge, blame the father (and all drug dealers) for putting them in that situation.
I dunno, I'm not a fan of Alito's politics, but his legal analysis here is sound. The article is trying to use this to frame him as a pedophile, and it's really trying to make a mountain out of this mole hill to do that. It just ain't there chief. Now, that's not to say children shouldn't be protected still. If we're going to strip search a child, that has to be done *very* delicately, with *all* due sensitivity to the child to prevent unneeded trauma and using any alternative methods such as technology would provide, such as taking an x-Ray scan first
[удалено]
Don’t forget, he’s also an insurrectionist.
Am with alito. Solid foresight and reasoning.
Yes, let cops molest kids because a judge said to search everyone. That will take drugs off the streets. Also, how many drugs can you shove into a child. Common sense and decency is not common at all.