The Ninth Circuit here in California ruled that a city policy of visual cavity searches for inmates scheduled to be transferred was unconstitutional.
I think I agree with the dissenting judge, Judge Richard Tallman. I don't see it as a 4th Amendment issue, though it's not clear that's what the judges used to rule against the searches. It's already been decided that these inmates have given up certain of their rights by being placed in a jail. A visual cavity search seems to me to be quite reasonable to keep the guards safe and the inmates from more easily attacking each other. Tallman even pointed out that the other judges seemed to be "ignoring jail officials' evidence of smuggling by inmates arrested for minor crimes".
California judges have a warped view of the Constitution. They take away our 2nd Amendment rights, but give 4th Amendment rights to people who have broken the law and essentially given up that right while they're in jail. These aren't daily cavity searches, they're searches that are only done before the inmates are transferred.
The only problem I have is that they mention that these inmates are newly arrested. That seems to imply that they haven't yet been convicted of anything. I'd like to read up on the actual case itself to see how this policy was applied. For convicted criminals, I don't have a problem with this, but if it's someone who hasn't yet been convicted I think that's overstepping the prison's authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment