Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
Filed under, “decisions that limit your civil rights,” one by the Supreme Court and a second by the Secret Service.
From NPR:
Supreme Court OKs Strip Searches For Minor Offenses
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that guards may routinely strip search even minor traffic offenders when they are arrested and detained. The court’s 5-4 ruling came in the case of a New Jersey man who was arrested because of a computer error.
The decision was the familiar 5 / 4 split. In the NPR report, Nina Totenberg includes information about the opinions of the Justices. Dissenters were led by Stephen Breyer, who
… noted that people have been detained and strip-searched for offenses as minor as driving with an inoperable headlight, having outstanding parking tickets, violating a dog leash law, and riding a bike without an audible bell. None of these people could have anticipated being arrested, he said, and none would likely have hidden weapons inside their body cavities.
I have absolutely no idea how often people hide weapons in their body cavities, but next time you’re out walking your dog or riding your bike, or maybe protesting, remember this bare minimum SCOTUS ruling.
I think Steven Rosenfeld, at AlterNet has a good point when he connects the strip searching decision with protestors.
The 5-4 decision … is a further erosion of the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unlawful search and seizure. It overturns laws in 10 states that place limits on suspicionless strip-searches and upholds a technique used by some local police forces against Occupy protesters last fall … .
In fact, Rosenfeld writes, efforts were already underway to get the kind of authority this decision seems to provide.
Among the jurisdictions seeking expanded authority to strip-search anyone arrested were the City of Chicago, where the NATO summit will be held this May … , as well as the state of North Carolina, where the Democratic National Convention will be held in early September in Charlotte.
Another decision, this by the Secret Service, is also familiar in its attempt to curtail the civil rights of citizens. From Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources:
Cunningham Falls State Park To Close During G-8 Summit at Camp David
Cunningham Falls State Park … will be closed to all public access from Thursday, May 17 through Saturday, May 19. The State Park is being closed at the request of the United States Secret Service in order to provide security for the G-8 Summit … .
The G8 Summit was, of course, moved from Chicago (where it would coincide with the NATO Summit) to Camp David. I still find it interesting that it’s world leaders talking about the economy who apparently need, as the Obama administration phrased it, a “more intimate” setting, and not world leaders talking about military force.
Shortly after the move was announced, the following appeared on the Occupy Baltimore website:
Occupy the G8 Summit …
The G8 Summit has been moved from Chicago to Camp David outside of Thurmont, Maryland. Some of us have made arrangements to stay next door at Cunningham Falls State Park where CAMPING IS PERMITTED.
The closure of the park means the perimeter for legal protesting has been expanded. We don’t know where potential protestors would be “kettled,” or contained, but we do know more about where they won’t be. That doesn’t mean, of course, that protestors won’t find others ways and locations to express their views, but it is another example of efforts from above to curtail such expressions. As it turns out, this particular curtailment is not the norm, but given what measures we’ve seen already, I don’t think the decision is surprising.
From the The Baltimore Sun, about the closure of the park:
The move is highly unusual, and may be without precedent.
The closure of Cunningham Falls State Park in Frederick County … was requested by the U.S. Secret Service because of ‘security concerns,’ Lt. Col. Chris Bushman, a DNR (Dept. of Natural Resources) spokesman, said Monday.
Members of Occupy Baltimore have called on protesters to reserve campsites at the park. But Bushman didn’t know whether group members had made camping reservations — or whether the security concerns were related to their plans. …
The Secret Service’s request that the park be closed during the event is the only one of its kind in recent memory, according to Bushman, who has worked at the department for 32 years. …
The WH announcement that the G8 had been moved from Chicago to Camp David came on March 5. The “Occupy the G8 Summit” post was made the next day.
Several hours later, Maryland Park Service Superintendent Nita Settina wrote on Twitter, ‘Occupy movement may camp at Cunningham Falls SP in May to protest G-8 Summit at nearby Camp David. Never a dull moment!’
I guess it will be a dull few days in May at Cunningham Falls after all, since now no campers will be allowed.
Thinking of both decisions, I have an idea: Occupiers and allies could organize a big bicycle ride to however close they can get to Camp David. They’ll need to make certain all bikes are properly equipped with “audible bells,” of course, and be prepared to be strip searched in case of arrest. I don’t know if that means wearing fewer clothes so it won’t take so long, or more, because you could use the extended time it takes to strip and re-clothe as a part of the protest. A personal decision, I guess.
But protesting, bike riding or whatever, just remember: you, too, can be strip searched. The Supreme Court says so.
yikes! the riht has its own perma govt via scotus. they rule an dover rule all other govt branches its looking like.
Yep. A bit scary, even though I guess we should be use to it by now.
Let’s see if Obama is critical of this sort of “overreach” by the Court. My bet is that he likes it just fine.
Indeed.
Perhaps you read Glenn Greenwald’s article on this?
Lovely. Right now, I’m sure President Hopey Changey is counting his lucky stars that the Democrats let Alito ooze through the confirmation hearings.
SCOTUS on strip search for minor offenses is directly traceable to Gore V Bush with Bush awarded the Presidency. From there the complete incompetence of the Bush Administration in ignoring the warning signs for 911 and their incompetence in attempting to prevent it. The ruling is also a direct result of the fear instilled by the Bush Administration post 911 on the country and thus the accelerated militarization of police forces regardless of size through out the country. The seeming lawlessness or restraint from tasering and shooting citizens for minor activities/infractions without repercussions. The erosion of rights from wire taps, search and seizure, lawlessness by the financial elites. Marvin Gaye’s “Whats Going On ” & “Mercy Mercy Me” have just as much meaning today as it did 40 years ago
What is sad is that the political class and ruling elite support all this-to preserve the wealth and power amongst the few. I expect the Repubs to support all the above but Democrats are useless in the fear to oppose the erosion and loss of our rights. That they would fight to preserve our rights scares the hell out of Dems because it may be perceived as weakness.-Pitiful
The Obama Administration does nothing to stop it, but rather contributes to it-targeted assassinations, immunity for telco, extensions of the Patriot Act..
I don’t recognize this country anymore, its not the country I remember pre-911.
We have to hope that a future SCOTUS will overturn these horrendous decisions. Brown v Board overturning separate but equal from Plessy v Ferguson comes to mind.as an example.
.
Of course we all knew Roberts and Alito were radicals before they were put on the court. During the last two days of the Alito hearings John Kerry sent an urgent email to the confirmation hearings warning that Alito was a dangerous nominee. He was in Switzerland, skiing. We need new parties, we need new people, period.
Unfortunately, this one’s blame doesn’t lie with the court but with the Obama DOJ; let’s not lose sight of that.
As long as the POTUS reserves the right to murder American citizens without trial as long as they are referred to as “terrorist suspects” first, I’m sure the Executive branch doesn’t care what SCOTUS says about strip-searching.