Alito Ad Flap Centers Over Strip Search

[Thom Little]

When police in a small Pennsylvania coal town went to the home of a suspected methamphetamine dealer, they sent for a female meter maid to search the suspect's wife and 10-year-old daughter.

The woman took the two to an upstairs bathroom, had them lift their shirts and drop their pants and patted them down. Then she directed them downstairs, where they sat on a couch while a Schuylkill County drug squad searched the home.

Six years later, interest groups on both sides of the high-stakes fight over Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito are spinning the "strip search" case to their own ends.

As a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Alito found it acceptable to search family members even if they were not specifically named in the warrant. But his view came in a dissent to the 2-1 majority opinion written by colleague Michael Chertoff — then a judge, now the nation's Homeland Security secretary — who said that officers went beyond the terms of the search warrant and were liable for potential damages.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051124/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_strip_search;_ylt=Aui9xsvZm9xeNxeBSVSFfX6yFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[iamjoy]

1. What About The Fourth Amendment

I'm just a lay person, but it seems to me it is very clear that the warrent must specify the person & place to be searched.

"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"

In other words, that girl (and her mother) had a right to be safe from being searched. While it may be true drug dealers use children as mules, if the oath did not specify law enforcement had probable cause to suspect that in this case and the girl was not named in the warrant I do not see how they had a right to search her.

Strict Constructionist? My tush.

[Toots]

2. That went out with the "No Knock Policy"

If in pursuit or if it is about DRUGS the constitution does not need to be followed. This was upheld by the courts. It would appear as if the Patriot Act goes even much farther. The Constitution (it would appear) is not worth the Hemp Paper it was written on.

[Kagemusha]

4. It sure sounds like this WASN'T a no-knock warrant.

If it had been, if a judge had signed off on such a thing, this wouldn't have arrived at the Supreme Court six years later.

So that's just cops not appreciating the not so subtle difference.

[Kagemusha]

3. The wife and daughter are not part of the house. Geez.

They are not property to be searched just like the rest of the premises.

And the probable cause cited seems to have been their just being there.

[Lilith Velkor]

5. Welcome to the War on Drugs

They have already come for your neighbors.