Is it unconstitutional to strip-search every new inmate entering a jail? The Supreme Court will consider that question next month when it hears the case of Albert Florence, a 35-year-old New Jersey man who spent a week in jail because of a warrant that wrongfully said he was wanted for nonpayment of a fine. Florence is suing the two jails where he was strip-searched and detained, arguing that searching him for contraband when he had been arrested for a minor offense violated his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, reports the Washington Post.

He's joined in the suit by people strip-searched after being arrested for "driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal, and riding a bicycle without an audible bell," Florence's lawsuit states. The humiliating treatment, he says, is something he wouldn't wish on his worst enemy. The American Bar Association is backing his case. "Nearly 14 million Americans are arrested each year,"and many arrests “do not involve violence or drugs and do not suggest a motive or opportunity to smuggle contraband into a prison," the association wrote in a brief to the court. The appeals court that earlier rejected Florence's claim wrote that "preventing the introduction of weapons and drugs into the prison environment is a legitimate interest of concern for prison administrators."

The court believed that there was a legitimate interest in those searches! So don't break your tail light or you will be seeing this guy above ^ :)

http://www.newser.com/story/128367/are-jail-strip-searches-unconstitutional.html

Yarmouth High School students may face blood-alcohol tests

Apr 04, 2012 12:00 am

http://www.theforecaster.net/news/print/2012/04/17/students-will-be-tested-alcohol-yarmouth-high-scho/119845

YARMOUTH — High school students could be asked to exhale before dancing as the School Committee considers conducting blood-alcohol breath tests at school dances.

"This is more a deterrent than a 'gotcha,'" Superintendent Judy Paolucci said about a proposed policy to "administer Breathalyzer tests to students while on school property or at school-sponsored events."

The proposal will be discussed Tuesday, April 10, from 6-8 p.m., at a policy committee meeting. The meeting at the school district office at 101 McCartney St. is open to the public.

At that point, Paolucci said students will also be asked their opinion of using the devices, which estimate blood-alcohol levels from breath samples, at the school or school-sponsored events.

A draft of the policy created as an amendment to the district policy on substance abuse provides guidelines for testing all students entering a school event or individual students who show signs they have been drinking before or during school events.

A positive test or refusing to take a test would lead to parental notification and discipline conforming to the existing chemical use policy.

Paolucci said she "is not a big fan" of using the test, but the discussion is needed to determine if it can make school events safer. She said she would like to hear from students at the policy committee meeting because the atmosphere may seem less formal.

These parents are stupid if they allowed this to happen. Is this school that dangerous? can't you pick out the drunk students from the sober ones?

LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court panel on Tuesday threw out a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage passed in 2008, upholding a lower court’s ruling that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated the constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians in California.

Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision was much more narrowly framed than the sweeping ruling of Judge Walker, who asserted that barring same-sex couples from marrying was a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.

The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

This happened in Febuary 2012. My point is how much more will gay people last before they have actual rights as married people. It was said that Prop 8 was unconstitutional but they did not say go ahead and get married now. Do gay people need to go to court again and fight for their marriage license that should legally be there's to begin with?

Citing Conflict with Federal Law, Department of Justice Challenges Arizona Immigration Law

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

This article is what the Federal Gov. had to say about the law. 

WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice challenged the state of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law, S.B. 1070, in federal court today.  

In a brief filed in the District of Arizona, the Department said S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that “the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”  A patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.  Having enacted its own immigration policy that conflicts with federal immigration law, Arizona “crossed a constitutional line.” 

The Department’s brief said that S.B. 1070 will place significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from high-priority targets, such as aliens implicated in terrorism, drug smuggling, and gang activity, and those with criminal records.  The law’s mandates on Arizona law enforcement will also result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who cannot readily prove their lawful status.

In declarations filed with the brief, Arizona law enforcement officials, including the Chiefs of Police of Phoenix and Tucson, said that S.B. 1070 will hamper their ability to effectively police their communities.  The chiefs said that victims of or witnesses to crimes would be less likely to contact or cooperate with law enforcement officials and that implementation of the law would require them to reassign officers from critical areas such as violent crimes, property crimes, and home invasions.

        

The Department filed the suit after extensive consultation with Arizona officials, law enforcement officers and groups, and civil rights advocates.  The suit was filed on behalf of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State, which share responsibilities in administering federal immigration law.

“Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns,” Attorney General Holder said.  “But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety.   Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility.  Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.

Can school officials strip search a thirteen-year-old girl suspected of giving ibuprofen to a classmate?

Relevant provision of Constitution:

Amendment IV 
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
.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will review a lower court ruling that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that she possessed ibuprofen.


The case, Redding v. Safford Unified School District, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity as a result of his actions

"Overzealous school officials stripped our client of her clothes and her constitutional rights," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU. "We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that such conduct has no place in America’s schools and will protect the privacy rights of America’s students."

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen - 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil - in the possession of Redding’s classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems or substance abuse, had given her the pills. Safford maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward all prescription medicines, including prescription-strength ibuprofen.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson presented Redding with the ibuprofen pills and informed her of her classmate’s accusations. Redding said she had never seen the pills before and agreed to a search of her possessions, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding’s backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse’s office in order to perform a strip search.

"It offends both common sense and the Constitution to undertake such an excessive, traumatizing search based on nothing more than an uncorroborated accusation of ibuprofen possession," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU and counsel of record in the case. "Our fundamental right to privacy must not be cast aside when faced with groundless allegations rooted in unfounded fears of adolescent Advil abuse."

Arizona law author spars with Schumer

This is the third article on the Arizona law SB1070  this is so you can see how it is going so far. This happened to day! Not a couple of years ago.

Schumer pressed SB 1070 author Russell Pearce about a provision that allows citizens to turn in cops if they don’t appear to be enforcing the immigration law.

“Isn’t that demeaning to police officers?” Schumer asked Pearce. “Won’t that push them to do things to protect themselves from lawsuits that they believe they shouldn’t do?

Pearce defended his law, telling Schumer that it was written with cooperation with law enforcement officials and that particular provision gave cops “the protection they need and the discretion at the same time.”

“I get a little disappointed that we’re the bad guys for enforcing the law,” Pearce, sounding irritated, later told Schumer. “Mr. Chairman, we have a national crisis and we continue to ignore it … I think Americans are a little tired of the drive-by statements from politicians.”

The New York senator also questioned Pearce over a training manual for Arizona police officers that suggested dress would be one of the indications used by law enforcement to determine whether a person was in the country legally.

“What does an illegal immigrant dress like?” Schumer asked Pearce.

In response, Pearce said that manual was developed in conjunction with federal immigration officials.

At one point, Pearce criticized Schumer for arguing that SB 1070 could lead to racial profiling by police officers. The law, Pearce said, explicitly bars profiling.

“I think it’s demeaning to law enforcement to assume they don’t know how to do their job,” Pearce told Schumer.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also traded jabs with Pearce over the DREAM Act, which would offer minors who meet certain requirements a pathway to citizenship.

“All of us have a heart and all of us have compassion,” Pearce said, calling the bill “blanket amnesty.” “But laws without consequences are no laws at all.”

Durbin responded: “Mr. Pearce, the DREAM Act is not a blanket amnesty.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75533.html#ixzz1sypIQvvS

Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?_r=1 

this article was written in April 2010. But is still a hot issue especially now because it has finally reached the Supreme Court. This will inform you of what this law is and does.

 It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.