The Jury Talks Back

5/21/2009

Court rules female guards may strip-search male inmates

Filed under: Uncategorized — aunursa @ 4:30 am

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that inmate Charles Byrd’s rights were not violated when a female guard in an Arizona jail searched inside his shorts, patting down his genitals and buttocks.  Male guards were available.

16 Comments

  1. Sounds like the female guard was available, too.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 5/21/2009 @ 9:08 am

  2. Does this work in the other direction too?

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 5/21/2009 @ 10:40 am

  3. This isn’t quite a strip search. That is normally completely nude, “bend over and ‘spread em’, lift the sack.” But it’s beyond a common pat-down, as well.

    And, yes, equality being what it is, it should apply the other direction.

    Comment by ManlyDad — 5/21/2009 @ 10:58 am

  4. Aww, crap. There are situations where the society of women is much preferrable to that of men, to a man, and intimate touching is definitely one of them. The guy was getting locked up with a bunch of other ugly, smelly guys. Instead of bitching about the woman strip-searching him, he should have been looking to get it to happen again.

    Comment by nk — 5/21/2009 @ 12:36 pm

  5. And, yes, equality being what it is, it should apply the other direction.

    Comment by ManlyDad — 5/21/2009 @ 10:58 am

    Managing female prisoners requires entirely different techniques from managing male prisoners.

    Comment by nk — 5/21/2009 @ 12:39 pm

  6. But, isn’t that discrimination?
    Where’s the equality?

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 5/21/2009 @ 12:41 pm

  7. AD, are you familiar with the myth of Procrustes?

    Comment by nk — 5/21/2009 @ 12:59 pm

  8. These assholes are locked up all day, with nothing else to do except file frivolous habeas and 1983 petitions. And some poor magistrate or staff attorney at some Federal Court has to sift through their misspellings, and bad grammar, and bad penmanship, and bad theories of law, and many times obscenities, for merit. And the worst part is that the scant few meritorious petitions get lost in the mess.

    Comment by nk — 5/21/2009 @ 1:07 pm

  9. AD, are you familiar with the myth of Procrustes?

    No! Please tell.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 5/21/2009 @ 1:11 pm

  10. It is actually an archetypal, Athenian myth about the advent of civilization. Procrustes was an ogre/robber who would waylay travellers and lay them down on an iron bed. If they were too long for the bed, he would lop off the parts that stuck out. If they were too short, he would stretch them until they fit. None survived the experience. At last, Theseus put Procrustes himself on the bed and lopped off the part that stuck out — his head.

    Comment by nk — 5/21/2009 @ 1:36 pm

  11. Well, we might be able to use that as a pre-interrogation filter…
    If they fit, we ask questions, and then shoot them.
    If they don’t fit …..
    But, we’ll need a very long bed if we ever find Osama – he’s got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do!

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 5/21/2009 @ 1:45 pm

  12. You were asking about equality. If some boy-lovers from three thousand years ago could figure out that one size does not fit all, why can’t we?

    Comment by nk — 5/21/2009 @ 2:15 pm

  13. Harvard Law!

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 5/21/2009 @ 4:36 pm

  14. What I want to know is, can she sue him for unjust enlarg… um, I mean, enrichment?

    Comment by Xrlq — 5/22/2009 @ 7:35 pm

  15. Likely not. But should she bring it to the attention of the IRS she might be liable for gift tax.

    Comment by nk — 5/22/2009 @ 8:26 pm

  16. Although there is a case out of the Seventh Circuit that refused to place a value of $500.00, the jurisdictional amount in a RICO suit, on a woman’s favors.

    Comment by nk — 5/22/2009 @ 8:30 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.