ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (08/29/85)
I saw a news article today about a woman who was strip-searched for a dog license violation, and was all set to be incensed until I read further. The details changed the picture a bit. Apparently, the woman's dog escaped from her yard. As a result, police charged her with failing to keep a city license on the dog's collar, failure to immunize the dog, and allowing it to run loose. She got a court date, intending to show papers there that proved that the dog had indeed been licensed and immunized. However, she never showed up in court. Some time later, she was stopped because her car was out of registration. When the cop did a routine license check, he discovered that she was wanted for failure to appear in court and took her to the police station. At the station, further checking disclosed that she had been arrested on drug charges twelve years earlier. The police department has a standing policy in that town: if someone is arrested who has ever before been arrested on drug charges, the prisoner is strip-searched for concealed drugs. Now, I'm not going to try to argue about whether this particular policy is right or wrong -- I can see arguments on both sides. Rather, I am presenting this article as a warning against jumping to conclusions. The situation described in the first paragraph is utterly absurd. Once the facts are known, the situation becombs at least plausible, at least if you take the view that not showing up for a court date is a much more severe offense than not registering a dog.
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (08/29/85)
>I saw a news article today about a woman who was strip-searched >for a dog license violation, and was all set to be incensed until >I read further. > [ ... ] >At the station, further checking disclosed that she had been arrested >on drug charges twelve years earlier. The police department has a >standing policy in that town: if someone is arrested who has ever >before been arrested on drug charges, the prisoner is strip-searched >for concealed drugs. > >Now, I'm not going to try to argue about whether this particular >policy is right or wrong I am. > -- I can see arguments on both sides. >Rather, I am presenting this article as a warning against >jumping to conclusions. The situation described in the first paragraph >is utterly absurd. Once the facts are known, the situation becombs >at least plausible, at least if you take the view that not >showing up for a court date is a much more severe offense than >not registering a dog. What is absurd here is that the police in that town have taken the Gallic view of justice, "guilty until proven innocent". Note that the woman only had to be arrested on drug charges; even if she was acquitted on all charges facing her by a jury of her peers, she would still be subjected to that type of humiliating search. I would submit that that type of search without a warrant would therefore violate the unreasonable search and seizure amendment of our Constitution. -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa "If she doesn't scream, the wedding can take place!" Doctor "Don't I have a say in the matter?" female companion "Be quiet" Doctor Which companion, what story?
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/30/85)
> I saw a news article today about a woman who was strip-searched > for a dog license violation, and was all set to be incensed until > I read further. [she was supposed to go to court about her dog...] > However, she never showed up in court. Some time later, she was > stopped because her car was out of registration. When the cop > did a routine license check, he discovered that she was wanted > for failure to appear in court and took her to the police station. > > At the station, further checking disclosed that she had been arrested > on drug charges twelve years earlier. The police department has a > standing policy in that town: if someone is arrested who has ever > before been arrested on drug charges, the prisoner is strip-searched > for concealed drugs. > > Now, I'm not going to try to argue about whether this particular > policy is right or wrong -- I can see arguments on both sides. > Rather, I am presenting this article as a warning against > jumping to conclusions. The situation described in the first paragraph > is utterly absurd. Once the facts are known, the situation becombs > at least plausible, at least if you take the view that not > showing up for a court date is a much more severe offense than > not registering a dog. Unless you're one of those unreasonable persons who think that unreasonable search without probable cause is unconstitutional, unethical and immoral. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Roads? Where we're going, we won't need any roads!"
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (08/30/85)
Now that my original posting has been misinterpreted by at least two people who have posted responses, it's time to clarify. I said: >> Now, I'm not going to try to argue about whether this particular >> policy is right or wrong -- I can see arguments on both sides. >> Rather, I am presenting this article as a warning against >> jumping to conclusions. and Jeff Sonntag replied: > Unless you're one of those unreasonable persons who think that > unreasonable search without probable cause is unconstitutional, unethical > and immoral. apparently not realizing that I meant EXACTLY what I said -- no more and no less. I did not post this article in order to get into a flaming debate about what is or is not "reasonable search." That is NOT why I posted my previous article!! I posted it because I thought this was a good example of how the impression created by the lead paragraph of a news story was greatly different from what one concludes with a few more facts. Essentially, the events in the story went from "completely hideous" to "obnoxious but plausible" as I read it. I thought it would help explain why I am often skeptical of stories given as examples when a lot of the details are missing.