We Win One!!

[ParamountScapin]

Heard on NPR today that the 71 cyclists who were doing a "slow ride" as a protest (I didn't catch what thye were protesting) in LA County won their first court case today.

When they were arrested all the women were strip-searched. Which is illegal. Also, they were held for two days with no access to make the required phone call. All of this was expressly against a judge's orders.

The men in the group were awarded $5,000, each, and the women were awarded $71,000, each. There are also many other civil suits pending as a result. The LA County constabulary responded by stating that "there was some misunderstanding of the law" by their people. Perhaps this will bring forth a better understanding on their part.

Nice to the bicyclist win one.

[Guest]

:eek:

I've been through that one before- being deprived of one's civil rights, detained and strip searched as a woman is no fun.

They should have awarded more. Damn *******s.

But it's nice to see us taken seriously for a change!

Koffee

[SamDaBikinMan]

WTF were they strip searching them for? This sounds crazy!

[ParamountScapin]

Probably strip-searched them because they thought they could get away with it. The law expressly forbids strip searching except in the case where the likelyhood of a hidden weapon is considered to be "high". The only people high were the cops to think that they could do so without repercussions. Cost them quite a bit so far and it is not over yet.

[Guest]

Good!

KB

[TandemGeek]

This would be the story they are referring to and it appears as though the LA County Sheriff's Office (who operates the jails) instituted a pretty stupid "process" for handling ALL convention-related protestors that violated CA law-- regardless of why they were arrested -- once they reached the jail.

I'm not sure there is a "victory" for cyclist's rights here in so much that it is more of a reaffirmation that there is a right and a wrong way to treat people who have been arrested.

I guess I'd like to know more about the circumstances surrounding the demonstration, why it started out with police support and then degraded into a confrontation with the resulting arrests. Anyone recall the details or have links to "old" news that may have been archived?

----------------------------

(AP) LA County settles Democratic convention lawsuit over cyclists' arrests
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -County supervisors voted 4-0 Tuesday to pay $2.7 million to settle a lawsuit by bicyclists whose civil rights allegedly were violated when they were arrested at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

The vote follows a 4-1 decision last month to set aside the money to settle the suit filed because women cyclists were subjected to strip and body cavity searches in plain view along women's jail corridors, and men were denied telephone calls and access to medication.

The men were not strip searched, and the bicyclists were never charged.

Supervisor Gloria Molina, who was the lone dissenter in setting aside the money, was absent for Tuesday's vote.

California law states that no one arrested on a misdemeanor charge may be strip searched before arraignment unless the charge involves weapons, drugs or violent crime, or if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is concealing a weapon or contraband substance.

Jail deputies changed procedures in 2001 to conform with state law.

The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court Nov. 9, 2001, and initially covered 57 bicyclists. On March 25, the cyclists' attorney Timothy J. Midgley, said the settlement would compensate 71 clients, 23 of them women.

The suit sought unspecified damages and a penalty of $25,000 per cyclist.

The women plaintiffs will receive $70,000 each and the men $5,000 each.

The bicyclists staged a ride through downtown on the second day of the Democratic National Convention as part of an effort to create a more bike-friendly environment.

Police said the cyclists were arrested after they ignored traffic laws, showed a disregard for safety, frightened pedestrians and nearly caused accidents. Cyclists said police blocked intersections for them and allowed the ride to proceed in an orderly fashion until suddenly changing tactics and arresting them.

[SamDaBikinMan]

I think all those cops should go to jail for at least a year each.

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
I think all those cops should go to jail for at least a year each.

The police officers that arrested the cyclists or the Sheriff's deputies (most likely female by the way) who violated Calif. State law after they arrived at the County Jail?

[Prosody]

I wonder if L.A. County will start seeing some female cyclists riding darned expensive bikes.

[TandemGeek]

Interesting reading -- but you need to read A LOT to find some balance.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=cyclists+arrested+democratic+convention+los+angeles&btnG=Google+Search

On the whole, a few of the participants apparently "violated the rules of engagement" that were established for the original demonstration between the organizers and police. That set off a chain of events that subjected folks to a nightmareish experience with a criminal justice system in LA -- a system hardened to deal with real criminals that was unleashed on some well meaning folks who just showed up for a friendly ride.

Clearly, the system failed and compensation is certainly justified for the mistreatment that the cyclists who were arrested had to endure. I'm still a bit upset with regard to the behavior of a few cyclist/protestors whose actions appeared to be the catalyst that caused the police to alter their role from parade escort to containment and arrest mode. None of this excuses the conduct of the LAPD, LASO, and CHP but it does make me shake my head just the same -- a few bad apples is all it takes on both sides of the equation.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by ParamountScapin
Heard on NPR today that the 71 cyclists who were doing a "slow ride" as a protest (I didn't catch what thye were protesting) in LA County won their first court case today.

When they were arrested all the women were strip-searched.
Sometimes it takes a little shake-up to make the cockroaches scurry.

RAID!

(I'm going to go rent, "L.A. Confidential.")

:crash:

[Chris L]

Originally posted by livngood
I'm not sure there is a "victory" for cyclist's rights here in so much that it is more of a reaffirmation that there is a right and a wrong way to treat people who have been arrested.

I agree. This is all about the way people are treated when they are arrested. Heck, around here it would be a step backwards. We desperately need more enforcement of basic laws to seriously increase cyclist safety. I'm not talking about people riding to a once in a blue-moon protest, I'm talking about the transportational cyclists riding to work every day and dealing with the sort of blind tosspots I have to deal with regularly.

[DanFromDetroit]

On the face of it, this seems to me to be a case of bureauacracy run amok. Some administrator decides that there should be a "standard" method for processing convention related arrests, and that method should include strip searches, and then some drone "just doing his job" carries out these ridiculous rules without engaging his brain.

Strip searching folks wearing Lycra is just plain stupid or worse, abusive. Cash doesn't fix the problem. Those responsible should be fired.

Dan

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
On the face of it, this seems to me to be a case of bureauacracy run amok. Some administrator decides that there should be a "standard" method for processing convention related arrests, and that method should include strip searches, and then some drone "just doing his job" carries out these ridiculous rules without engaging his brain.

Agree to a certain extent. However, again, I'd be curious to know what actually transpired in the County Jail that caused the Sheriffs to resort to the strip search. Again, there are two sides to every story, for every action there is a reaction. Something had to have happened when the female protestors arrived at County Lock-Up (Twin Towers) that caused the Sheriffs to invoke a strip search protocol. Again, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily justified but it would be nice to know if something was said, done or implied by a protestor or protestors to cause the search.

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
Strip searching folks wearing Lycra is just plain stupid or worse, abusive. Dan

Just curious as to why you would think they were wearing lycra? Here is a link to some photos of Critical Mass' 10th Anniversary Ride in SF: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/09/151907.php I would characterize the "eclectic" style of dress as normal for a Critical Mass event and would note that the % of cotton pants and shorts far outweigh lyca at these events.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record on all these various threads, but be careful not to assume too much about your fellow cyclists. Cyclists come in all shapes and sizes and have a variety of reasons for riding bicycles. Whether or not you agree with them isn't important -- understanding what they are and how their goals relate to your own before taking a position that is either for, against or neutral to your own is.

In the interest of pursing balance, here is a copy of the LAPD Press Release that provides their view of the events that led up to the arrests. If you wade through the stories on the links and links to links to the Google Search results I provided you'll find that the LAPD's account is corroborated by several sources, including some of the folks who were arrested.


LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMET PRESS RELEASE
Wednesday, August 16, 2000
"Bicyclists Arrested for Reckless Driving"

Los Angeles: On August 15, 2000, at approximately 5:30 PM, a group, identified as "Critical
Mass" was scheduled to assemble at Pershing Square, ride to the Convention Center and then
return to Pershing Square. LAPD officers assigned to monitor the demonstration observed the
group of approximately 100 cyclists congregate at 5th Street and Flower Street, several blocks
from Pershing Square, their designated point of origin. The large group of bicyclists were
blocking the intersection and interfering with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Officers ordered
the bicyclists to clear the intersection and move to the sidewalk.

After initially complying, one of the bicyclists yelled obscenities at the officers and waved the
other bicyclists to follow him. Los Angeles Police Officers, assigned to a Bike Detail, activated
their lights and siren in an attempt to stop the group. The bicyclists refused to comply and
instead, continued eastbound 6th Street to southbound Broadway Avenue, to westbound 7th
Street to northbound Figueroa Avenue, and then eastbound 6th to southbound Hope Street.
They spreaded out, occupying both the north and southbound lanes and center dividers. They
occupied east and westbound lanes, zig-zagging back and forth between vehicles and
pedestrians. Throughout this episode, they displayed a wanton disregard for public safety. The
bicyclists/demonstrators violated several Sections of the California Vehicle Code, including but
not limited to, 21650 VC - Failure to Ride on the Right Half of the Roadway, 21651(a) VC -
Riding Across a Divided Highway, 21650.1 VC - Failure of a Bicycle to Operate on a Highway
in the Same Direction as a Vehicle and 21453(a) VC - Failing to Stop at a Red Phase
Tri-Light.

Based on the seriousness of the violations and the actions of the protesters, the decision was
made to arrest the violators. Fifty-one individuals were arrested in the area of 18th Street and
Flower Avenue and twenty individuals in the area of Pico Boulevard and Hope Street. All,
except one, were booked for 23103(a) VC - Reckless Driving. The one juvenile, was cited and
released to his parents/guardians.

For information in regard to these arrests, please contact Media Relation Section at
213-485-3586.

This press release was prepared by Officer Eduardo Funes, Media Relations Section.

For Release 11:00 am PDT
August 16, 2000

[hayneda]

Of course we don't know all the facts here, but an unjustified strip search could reasonably be interpreted as sexual assualt. These women could pressure the district attorney to press criminal charges.

Dave

[bac]

Hey, you can strip search me, and perhaps do a bit of probing for $71k! ;)

I'm joking, of course. Wow, I'm glad to hear that the LA County cops didn't get away with this type of behavior. However, given the new "Patriot Act", we may see more of this type of civil rights abuse. :mad:

[DanFromDetroit]

Originally posted by livngood

...
Just curious as to why you would think they were wearing lycra? Here is a link to some photos of Critical Mass' 10th Anniversary Ride in SF:
....


I mentioned the Lycra because I would probably be dressed in Lycra for a cycling event. Cycling and Lycra naturally seem to go together. Just a "knee-jerk" or stereotypical response, I guess.

The photos of the CM ride do show many with non-technical clothing, and it does look like a cool day. I still see lots of Polyester and Coolmax just the same.

All in all, the LA police department has even a worse reputation than the police where I live (noting that Detroit PD finds itself routinely on the wrong end of Federal investigations), so I am not inclined to give the LAPD the benefit of any doubt there might be.

Dan

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by hayneda
but an unjustified strip search could reasonably be interpreted as sexual assualt.

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
All in all, the LA police department has even a worse reputation than the police where I live (noting that Detroit PD finds itself routinely on the wrong end of Federal investigations), so I am not inclined to give the LAPD the benefit of any doubt there might be.

Again, I urge you all to please pay attention to the facts before you draw your conclusions... unless you are unconcerned with understanding what happened and perhaps why.

The strip search was conducted by the LA County Sheriff's deputies in the County Jail, not the LAPD.

The strip search protocol does not entail an invasive cavity search and is conducted by and in the presence of female deputies, e.g., in a strip search the person(s) being searched are instructed to remove their clothes and then to bend over and "spread-em" while the clothing is thoroughly gone through and then cataloged into evidence and sealed in an envelope. The detainees are then given inmate jumpsuits to wear.

As to whether or not the protocol was followed, I haven't found any data on that. However, since none of the materials makes specific reference to "in the presence of male deputies" I must assume they followed that part of the protocol otherwise it too would have been picked up given the inflamatory nature it would have carried.

[DanFromDetroit]

Originally posted by livngood
...
The strip search was conducted by the LA County Sheriff's deputies in the County Jail, not the LAPD.


Thanks for pointing that out. At least where I live there is quite a bit of difference between the training and work experience of a city police officer and a Sheriff's deputy staffing a county jail.

For me I would be looking to see if these searches were indeed standard practice, done for everyone who passes through the doors of the County Jail or if the folks we are speaking of received "extra attention" because of their status as "protesters".

If they simply were given the same treatment everyone gets, and didn't like it, they should just avoid being arrested in the future and the problem is solved.

OTOH if they were singled out and given "special treatment" then the persons responsible for this have some explaining to do, in my view. If they can't explain their actions, they should be removed from their positions as unfit.

Dan

[Guest]

Still,

From what I understood, strip searches were not common for misdemeanor charges, regardless of same sex strip searches.

The most common type of search is a pat down, NOT a strip search. The fact that females were strip searched while men were not gives me reason to suspect there was more at work than simple procedure. I personally believe that women are commonly strip searched more than men because for women, strip searching is a (in my opinion) more degrading and humiliating act when performed on women- regardless if it's women strip searching women, or men strip searching women.

The strip search protocol does not entail an invasive cavity search and is conducted by and in the presence of female deputies, e.g., in a strip search the person(s) being searched are instructed to remove their clothes and then to bend over and "spread-em" while the clothing is thoroughly gone through and then cataloged into evidence and sealed in an envelope. The detainees are then given inmate jumpsuits to wear.

Are you kidding? A strip search of this magnitude is DEFINITELY AN INVASIVE CAVITY SEARCH... they ask you to bend over, THEN THEY INSERT THEIR FINGERS UP YOUR @SS AND VAGINA... how more invasive can that be? I certainly hope this is a typo on your part.

As someone who was forced to go through one of these strip searches for no reason other than for the laughs and kicks of the security (currently in a class action lawsuit over this), let me assure you that this is indeed a disgusting, physical assult- and I asserted this when I filed my complaint. Had I been a felon, I wouldn't have seen the problem- prisoners have their rights taken away from them- that is prison. BUT as an innocent person who happened to be passing by some security guards who had nothing better to do than harass myself and the women involved in my lawsuit, it is the worst thing that could possibly happen to you. I was never charged for anything, suspected of anything in particular, or put in custody. I was pulled aside, questioned for a very long time, then taken in a room and strip searched. After they laughed and smirked at me, they let me go. I suspect that this is EXACTLY what happened with these women. If so, they deserve way more than they got. $71,000 is not enough to dent the pockets of these perverts. They need to hurt like they hurt the people that they did this to, and in order for them to hurt, you have to hit them in the pocketbook, and hard.

But still, we are getting off the subject here. This was a critical mass demonstration, and I don't know the details. I listened to the news report someone posted, and either the media is very biased (I doubt it in this case), or the police got out of control and overreacted. I'm thinking they overreacted. Either way, they handled the situation badly- since when is ANYONE given a $20,000 bail for disturbing the peace? Even people who murder sometimes get less in bail! Sheesh!

LA police, LA County, etc. are all responsible. I personally hope the victims also brought on civil suits and named each of the perverts who participated in the strip searches so they can own these perverts houses by the time everything blows over.

Koffee

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Are you kidding? A strip search of this magnitude is DEFINITELY AN INVASIVE CAVITY SEARCH... they ask you to bend over, THEN THEY INSERT THEIR FINGERS UP YOUR @SS AND VAGINA... how more invasive can that be? I certainly hope this is a typo on your part.

No, that would be called a body cavity search which is invasive.

[Guest]

Why are they bending over then? To get some blood to their brain?

Bending over is the cavity search part. A strip search does not involve bending over unless there is a cavity search.

[cbhungry]

I don't care if the bicyclists were in the wrong or hurtling obsecnities, rocks, etc. .......the fact that only women were stripped search and not men shows that sexism is still rampant. These cops need to lose more than their jobs, they need to lose their gonads!

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Why are they bending over then? To get some blood to their brain? Bending over is the cavity search part. A strip search does not involve bending over unless there is a cavity search.

No, a cavity search requires a search warrant and may only performed by medical personnel.

A body search (aka, a strip search when conducted on an unclothed person) can entail a visual inspection of body openings for the purpose of locating weapons or contraband. Most jails conduct a strip search of all prisoners as part of in-processing -- which also usually entails a shower and inspections for pre-existing injuries, body marks/scars, lice, etc....

Different jurisdictions have different rules that goven when such searches are authorized but these are the general definitions. California changed its laws for people charged with misdemeanor offenses.

[belfast-biker]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
I've been through that one before- being detained and strip searched as a woman is no fun.




But men... enjoy it?

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by cbhungry
the fact that only women were stripped search and not men shows that sexism is still rampant. These cops need to lose more than their jobs, they need to lose their gonads!

Please share with us links to what you've discovered that outlines in detail why the searches were conducted on the women and not the men that supports your conclusion and where you discovered that men conducted or were present for the women's strip searches?

Seriously, if you have the URLs I'd love to read more on this...

[Guest]

Didn't say men enjoy it. I said that I BELIEVE THAT it is a more degrading and humiliating experience for women than for men. Where did I say that men enjoy being strip searched? Please quote it exactly and let me know so I can make the correction. I get really tired of people putting words in my mouth because of their inability to correctly interpret what I said and how I said it. Thanks.

I don't know about California law, but I do know the federal law (as I am involved with a federal lawsuit, and not a state), but with federal law, medical personnel does not need to be present to cavity search you, as in my case. What does need to be clear is WHY a person is being strip searched AND cavity searched. Without the correct reasoning, they are in the wrong. Please. You certainly cannot be that naive. Do you really think that medical personnel are located at every jailhouse and detainee facility in the country?

I do not know about California law. I do know that federal law ALWAYS trumps state law. In my case, this is a federal matter, which makes the lawsuit more complicated.

What you will have to do here, Mark, is to send me a link to the caselaw you are using when you state what the California laws are. I am actually interested in this case for the civil side, and it would be nice to know all the facts so I can use this in my situation. As you ask cbhungry to prove her point, I ask you to prove YOUR case by sending me the URL's.

Until then, I maintain that this is a STRIP SEARCH AND A BODY CAVITY SEARCH. Perhaps a link to the actual story stating the exact circumstances and gives greater details would help us all understand where you are coming from when you state your beliefs. Also, the case number to the lawsuit for state court would help so we could read the complaint, as well as other court documents would be nice too.

Thanks,

Koffee

[belfast-biker]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Didn't say men enjoy it. I said that I BELIEVE THAT it is a more degrading and humiliating experience for women than for men.



That's what I thought you were insinuating.

Why is it less degrading and humilating for men? I suppose male rape isn't as degrading/humilating either?

[DanFromDetroit]

Originally posted by livngood
Seriously, if you have the URLs I'd love to read more on this...

Part of the original post...

Originally posted by ParamountScapin

Heard on NPR today that the 71 cyclists who were doing a "slow ride" as a protest (I didn't catch what thye were protesting) in LA County won their first court case today.

When they were arrested all the women were strip-searched. Which is illegal. Also, they were held for two days with no access to make the required phone call. All of this was expressly against a judge's orders.

The men in the group were awarded $5,000, each, and the women were awarded $71,000, each...

I checked npr.org but didn't find the original story.

Dan

[Guest]

Hmmm... I'll leave it up to Mark to get that information, since he seems to be implying that he's privy to certain information that the rest of us are not.

Thanks for your effort, Dan.

Why is it less degrading and humilating for men? I suppose male rape isn't as degrading/humilating either?

I said, IN MY OPINION. Why? Because I believe it to be so. Why do you think that men are more traumatized then women?

[belfast-biker]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Hmmm... I'll leave it up to Mark to get that information, since he seems to be implying that he's privy to certain information that the rest of us are not.

Thanks for your effort, Dan.



I said, IN MY OPINION. Why? Because I believe it to be so. Why do you think that men are more traumatized then women?


More? No. Perhaps equally though, depending on the individual, rather than the gender?

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
What you will have to do here, Mark, is to send me a link to the caselaw you are using when you state what the California laws are. I am actually interested in this case for the civil side, and it would be nice to know all the facts so I can use this in my situation. As you ask cbhungry to prove her point, I ask you to prove YOUR case by sending me the URL's.

You can find a wide variety of information on the subject by starting with this search string:
http://www.google.com/search?q=california+law+body+search+cavity+search&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

Since the incident in question occured in Los Angeles, here is a link to the LAPD's Manual and you'll want to scroll down to section 620.22 entitled BOOKING SEARCHES.

http://www.lapdonline.org/dept_manual/vol_4/v_4_600_2.htm

Regarding the conduct of the search by medical personnel, see Section 620.25.

Please don't take my comments as an affront to your situation or that of any one else who has suffered an injustice or violation of the rights. That's not my point. I only engage in these discussions to remind readers to apply a critical eye to what they read and hear IF they are interested in understanding what has happened, regardless of what it may be. Rushing to judgement is a dangerous thing to do, particularly with incomplete or potentially erroneous information.

[Guest]

I agree- rushing to judgement is never wise before hearing (or seeing) all the facts.

Having said that, did the police gain a search warrant before conducting their visual body cavity search? At the very least, these women were told to bend over and spread their legs- this is at the very least, a visual cavity search. I would have to actually read the legal documents submitted in court and look through the discovery to read what these women were said specifically done to them beyond the broad wording given in the official reports so far. I doubt any newspaper or media source would differentiate or describe anything beyond a visual body cavity search- it's too graphic in nature for most public viewing. However, court documents often go into the graphic detail- which should be in the complaint, at the very least. That's why I ask for the URL to the complaint or any of the other legal documents submitted in court.

Having said that, taking directly from your URL (thanks for providing), the exact wording for a misdemeanor is:

____________________________________________________________
Misdemeanor/Infraction Arrestees. Arrestees in custody for a misdemeanor or infraction offense shall not be given a strip or visual body cavity search unless:

The offense involved a controlled substance; or,

The offense involved a weapon or violence and there is a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing a weapon; or,

There is an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing contraband or a weapon regardless of the offense.
______________________________________________________________

Do you really think that any of these three points were REASONABLY met, and ONLY by the women? If so, I'm curious as to how you come to that reasoning. Maybe you can PM me if this turns out to be some convoluted, lengthy discussion (which takes away from the original purpose of the thread).

The second part is of particular interest, and I would like to see the results of the form 12.31, which would have been submitted in the discovery process and should be public knowledge:

______________________________________________________________
Officer-Responsibility. When an officer has a reasonable suspicion that an arrestee in custody for a misdemeanor or infraction offense is concealing a weapon or contraband, the officer shall:

Complete a Booking Recommendation, Form 12.31;

Submit the Form 12.31 to the concerned supervisor; and,

Upon supervisory approval, conduct the strip search or visual body cavity search
______________________________________________________________

So, where is this Form 12.31 they filled out so that they could strip search OR visual body cavity search the women? I suspect HIGHLY that the form was never obtained. They never obtained the search warrant, which made the strip search and visual body cavity search highly suspect. I am just SPECULATING, as I do not have the court documents in front of me, BUT I will see if I can get my hands on them so I can look at what exactly is true or not true before jumping to any conclusions.

The last part of interest is:

___________________________________________________________
Note: Any object observed during a visual body cavity search may be recovered by the searching officer (e.g., taped under breast or scrotum) provided it is not inside or partially inside a body cavity, i.e., vagina or anus. In these cases, the arrestee shall be isolated and kept under observation until a body cavity search warrant has been obtained. A physical body cavity search requires a search warrant (4/620.25).

____________________________________________________________

So, what did the police find? What made it so necessary for the police to conduct the search in the first place, and ONLY on the women, and not the men?

I won't belabor the point by cutting and pasting anymore, unless subsequent points are brought up and needing clarification, but notice in the next paragraphs where Jail-Personnel responsibility finds it NECESSARY for strip and visual body cavity searches, they must submit the proper forms and go through a process- was this process followed? Somehow, I don't think so. Also, if anyone argues that the cyclists were arrested under felony laws, strip searches are manditory, but anything beyond that still must have a search warrant and the proper forms and documentation must be filled out. I wonder why it is that if they were arrested as felons, why is it that only the women were arrested as felons, while the men were arrested as misdemeanors? This is highly suspect.

We could go back and forth on this all day- I actually am on my way out soon for a 4 day fitness convention up at O'Hare, but I can periodically check back in the evenings and debate this with you or anyone else. BUT from what I'm reading, I'm still seeing that the women were pulled aside and separated from the men, treated differently by being strip searched and at the very least, visually body cavity searched, while the men were just locked in a jail and detained. There is at least a hint of impropriety here, and if you can't see it, then at least the jury did, which is why the cyclists won their case.


From your other searches you sent over:

Unreasonable search – body cavity
People v. Eric More 97 NY 2d 209 (Feb. 19, 2002). The Court of Appeals held that law enforcement personnel had no authority to conduct a warrantless strip search and body cavity search absent exigent circumstances.

Jail strip-searches recorded on video
The taping of minor offenders will play into a privacy suit. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ISSUE IN ANY WAY, AS IT INVOLVES VIDEOTAPING MINORS WHO ARE STRIP SEARCHED WHEN THEY ARE DETAINED. (using capitals to distinguish what I am saying from the actual article, that's all).

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/research/law/Chap9_PurReg.html
Appreciate 2., numbers 1 and 2, where they state that the exceptions to the search warrant is when consent is given or when objects are in plain view for the officer to see. I seriously doubt these women gave their consent, which would invalidate this argument. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a court case to begin with.

All these links you gave were good links- they seem to reinforce what I was saying, which is obviously clear.

I see nothing there that says in any documents that only medical personnel are allowed to perform strip searches. If you do see that, please point it out. I may have missed it, but I doubt it.

Another site you gave was a porno piece. I'll skip that one, ok? ;)

What the majority of us ARE saying is that the infractions that may or may not have been committed do not amount to a strip and/or body cavity search. Taking it one step further, how is it that even if there are infractions that were severe that we may not know of, only the WOMEN are subjected to a strip search, at the very least, while the men are taken to a cell and left alone? I am failing to see how anyone can say the punishment fits the crime. It simply doesn't- not from my end, and not according to the rules of law you sent over to me to read.

If we continue down this path, can we at least move this part of the thread to the political discussions so we can prevent clogging the posts with information that people are not necessarily interested in with regards to the origin of this post? I have no problem with that.

Thanks,

Koffee

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Do you really think that any of these three points were REASONABLY met, and ONLY by the women? If so, I'm curious as to how you come to that reasoning.

Here's a"guess" at why they may have been treated differently... and it's a WAG because I haven't found source data that discusses this... the men's jail was probably filled to capacity and the men never made it out of holdling and through the formal booking-in process which, at that time, was probably in violation of recently passed Calif. state law and would have included the same strip / body search, shower and blue jumpsuit. The women's jail, on the other hand, was not overcrowded and as a result the women were fully processed pending arraignment under the original charges of reckless driving that were subsequently dropped. The women cyclists were probably not singled out for this strip search as it was jailhouse SOP for all inductees. The latter seems to be at issue in many of the cases that have been reported on in some of the links that were available off the Google search string I provided.

But, this is just a hypothesis, not a fact.


Originally posted by Koffee Brown
From your other searches you sent over:I see nothing there that says in any documents that only medical personnel are allowed to perform strip searches. If you do see that, please point it out.

Section 600.25 as noted in my reply, second paragraph below:

"620.25 PHYSICAL BODY CAVITY SEARCHES. Arrestees in custody shall not be given a physical body cavity search except under the authority of a search warrant and under the following conditions:

A physical body cavity search shall be conducted under sanitary conditions by either a physician, registered or licensed vocational nurse, or Emergency Medical Technician Level II licensed to practice in California.

The search shall be conducted in an area of privacy so that persons not of the same sex as the arrestee or not required for the search are excluded from the immediate area and are unable to observe the arrestee.

Exception: Licensed medical personnel are not required to be of the same sex as the arrestee.

When a physical body cavity search of any arrestee is conducted, the concerned employee shall complete the required portion of the Form 12.31 or Form 5.30. A copy of the search warrant shall be distributed with the Arrest Report, Form 5.01.2.

In the event a physical body cavity search of an arrestee is conducted after the arrestee has been booked and the related reports have been completed, jail personnel shall use the Form 5.30. A copy of the search warrant shall be distributed with the Form 5.30."

These procedures appear to be amended to reflect current California law relative to minors, etc... and as evidenced by all the forms now required are indicative of the legal battles that have been raging in California -- and elsewhere in the US -- on the subject of body searches.

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Another site you gave was a porno piece. I'll skip that one, ok? ;)

It's a google search string... you get what you get. :^(

[Prosody]

From early in this thread. Emphases added:

Originally posted by livngood
This would be the story they are referring to and it appears as though the LA County Sheriff's Office (who operates the jails) instituted a pretty stupid "process" for handling ALL convention-related protestors that violated CA law-- regardless of why they were arrested -- once they reached the jail.

[snip]
----------------------------

(AP) LA County settles Democratic convention lawsuit over cyclists' arrests
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -County supervisors voted 4-0 Tuesday to pay $2.7 million to settle a lawsuit by bicyclists whose civil rights allegedly were violated when they were arrested at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

The vote follows a 4-1 decision last month to set aside the money to settle the suit filed because women cyclists were subjected to strip and body cavity searches in plain view along women's jail corridors, and men were denied telephone calls and access to medication.

The men were not strip searched, and the bicyclists were never charged.

[Big Snip]

[Guest]

I see where you are saying medical personnel- but I am unsure that what these women were subjected to was a physical body cavity search. I believe that they were most likely subjected at most to a visible body cavity search, since this was a misdemeanor, and not a felony.

I took it to believe that it was the physical cavity body search, but reading into the law, I believe the women were subjected to a visible one instead. What would need to happen is that we would need to get ahold of the legal paperwork submitted in the complaint and in discovery just to see what happened with the women.

The latter seems to be at issue in many of the cases that have been reported on in some of the links that were available off the Google search string I provided.

I didn't see anything written that it was ok to avoid the strip search process in the case of overcrowding. Could you provide the wording verbatum so that I may see this? If there was a suspicion of an illegal substance and/or drugs or any other illegal weapon or contraband, EVERYONE would have been strip searched on the spot. Again, why were the women the only ones suspected of having illegal contraband, while the men were not? Do you really think if the men were suspected of having guns, that they would have simply ignored this fact and put these men with guns in a holding cell and said "oh well, it's too crowded to take the men through a strip search right now to get that gun"? On the other hand, it's more likely that women in the same circumstances behaving in the same manner are held to a higher degree of suspicion, and because there's less overcrowding, they'll go ahead and strip search them, without the warrent (my suspicion) while at the same time, letting the men carrry the guns..... this is just not a smart deduction to make for whomever decided they'd strip search the women and not the men. I refuse to believe that the people who run those prisons are that stupid, for lack of a better word to explain the description.

Here's a"guess" at why they may have been treated differently... and it's a WAG because I haven't found source data that discusses this... the men's jail was probably filled to capacity and the men never made it out of holdling and through the formal booking-in process which, at that time, was probably in violation of recently passed Calif. state law and would have included the same strip / body search, shower and blue jumpsuit. The women's jail, on the other hand, was not overcrowded and as a result the women were fully processed pending arraignment under the original charges of reckless driving that were subsequently dropped. The women cyclists were probably not singled out for this strip search as it was jailhouse SOP for all inductees. The latter seems to be at issue in many of the cases that have been reported on in some of the links that were available off the Google search string I provided.


I would be interested in your hypothesis.... that's a stretch. Can you provide the documentation that 1) Strip and/or body searches are typically overlooked when the prisons are too overloaded to process the detainee and 2) When a person is suspected of carrying illegal contraband that they are placed in a holding cell and if their arraignment happens to arise BEFORE the strip and/or cavity search, and the charges are subsequently dropped, they are automatically off the hook?

The assumption the police made here is that they were ALL carrying contraband- but you state that the men were not strip or body searched because of prison overcrowding, while the women were searched because they happened to undergo processing sooner. If what you are saying is correct, then how could it be that if the men had the contraband, they were simply overlooked? And another question- on a typical evening, how long does it take to process a prisoner for the men and the women? If you argue from the side of the prison, and that was truly their thinking, it would be in the court documents. I highly suspect it didn't take as long as TWO DAYS to process the men (according to the NPR report). In that two day period, if they all were processed, which I believe they were, then the men should have been strip searched. They were not.

Your hypothesis is interesting, but far-fetched.

Koffee

[Guest]

The vote follows a 4-1 decision last month to set aside the money to settle the suit filed because women cyclists were subjected to strip and body cavity searches in plain view along women's jail corridors, and men were denied telephone calls and access to medication.

The men were not strip searched, and the bicyclists were never charged.

Thank you Prosody for further emphasis on the facts of the case.

This shows many violations here, as I argued- 1) strip searched in a public area, 2) body cavity searched without a warrant (assuming no medical personnel available, since it was done in corridors and in an open area), 3) held for 2 days while having their basic rights denied with a simple phone call and 4) the men being treated differently, in the sense that in the two day period, the men were not subjected to any strip or body cavity search.

Facts... not hypotheses or suppositions.

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Prosody
From early in this thread. Emphases added:

I know what it says in the AP article, but I also took the time to read the accounts of the women who were arrested and many others.... The cavity search was visual. Not necessarily pleasant, but there is a distiniction.

You can read more about the accounts here:
http://www.bclu.org/stories/demonstrations/lacm.html

[Guest]

Regardless of visual or physical, procedure was not followed. In addition, no one was charged, AND the men were not searched at all. Add to the fact that they were held for two days while having their basic rights denied.

Thanks for the link. I'm going to read it.

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
I believe that they were most likely subjected at most to a visible body cavity search, since this was a misdemeanor, and not a felony. '

Bingo.

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Your hypothesis is interesting, but far-fetched.

I agree and I so much as said so right up front: WAG = Wild Ass Guess. You asked for a possible explanation and I provided one.

As I have said all along, there isn't enough information to draw any conclusions. I'm still interested to see if anyone can find more information regarding what actually happened and why. But, so that you don't lose sight of how we got hear and where I stand, please go re-read this thread and my first postings.

[Guest]

Susanne Blossom, Deborah Gomez, Gary Miller are the only people who submitted accounts. Three accounts out of the 71 who were arrested is an extremely low number in which to assume that their stories are similar to anyone else's.

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't say much about your hypothesis. Read this:

The judge could not act right away, though, because, in the parlance of the courts, "the bodies had arrived," but "the paperwork" had not.
-from the story of Gary Miller in the last link you provided.

That means that everyone was processed, but again, the men were not subjected to the strip search. The overcrowding hypothesis is moot. If that is so, what are other possible reasons for not strip or visually body searching the men as opposed to the women, especially since they were detained for up to two days?

[Guest]

Something had to have happened when the female protestors arrived at County Lock-Up (Twin Towers) that caused the Sheriffs to invoke a strip search protocol.

I remember fully the original spirit of your original posting, however, it was this quote that started all this debate in the first place- the fact that you maintain that the females were responsible for their subsequent strip search and body search because they behaved in a certain manner, while the men did not receive one- which seemed to be an implication that the behavior pattern of the women was of rowdiness and civil disobedience, while the men were well behaved. Then later, it was not as much as the behavior as it was the prison overcrowding which resulted in the explanation from you as to why the men were not searched and the women were.... we are off the original topic, which is why I think it would be better off in the political forum at this point.

<sigh>

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
I remember fully the original spirit of your original posting, however, it was this quote that started all this debate in the first place- the fact that you maintain that the females were responsible for their subsequent strip search and body search because they behaved in a certain manner, while the men did not receive one- which seemed to be an implication that the behavior pattern of the women was of rowdiness and civil disobedience, while the men were well behaved.

I don't see these as being in conflict; one is a my genuine interest in understanding why the women would have been strip searched IF it wasn't standard operating procedure. If it was standard operating procedure then it begs your very question; why weren't the men similarly subject to the strip search. You then asked for a possible explanation which is what prompted my hypothesis / WAG.

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Then later, it was not as much as the behavior as it was the prison overcrowding which resulted in the explanation from you as to why the men were not searched and the women were....

Now you're putting weight on my hypothesis which I have said is merely a response to your request for a what if...

Bottom Line: I don't know what happened any more than you do and haven't seen anyone adding new insights that might help to prove my hypothesis is seriously flawed or to shed light on whether or not there was a reason for the women's strip search beyond SOP.

We agree in principle but seem to be struggling with assignment of blame. I am not privy to enough information at this point to know where fault lies beyond what appears to be a systemic problem throughout California whereby people -- many people including minors, men and women arrested for many things other than these demonstrations -- have been subjected to this same treatment when processed into County and City jails on misdemeanor charges which is no longer allowed under California State Law (according to what I've read). There are issues with respect to the extent of privacy relative to video taping and personal dignity issues. As a result, there are many lawsuits being settled in and out of court because of this and this is just one of them; however, the number of people involved in this one incident has made it very newsworthy. Because they are cyclists, it has been brought to our attention.

This brings me full circle back to my original question regarding if this was a victory for cyclists... and I'm not sure it is. That the original charges were dropped and a false arrest suit is still pending may be more relevant; however, once again the conduct of some of the cyclists has tarnished the PR value of the "bikes belong" message.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by ParamountScapin
Heard on NPR today that the 71 cyclists who were doing a "slow ride" as a protest (I didn't catch what thye were protesting) in LA County won their first court case today.

When they were arrested all the women were strip-searched.

The men in the group were awarded $5,000, each, and the women were awarded $71,000, each. There are also many other civil suits pending as a result.
Give me a break. Maybe they were hiding GU?

[cbhungry]

The fact is the women were searched and the men were not.

The court is ruling in their favor which implies the LA police screwed up.

I have personally seen the abuse and discrepancy in treatment between male and female, black and white, gay and heterosexual detainees/prisoners when I moonlighted as a emergency room physician at Atlanta's Fulton county Grady Hospital in the detention zone (This was were people were bought if injured or hurt while being detained before a conviction (wether innocent or guilty) or once in the prison.) Many of them were raped or subject to humiliating circumstances that did not make any sense with respect to their crimes. I administed to a serial killer with an myocardial infarction who was treated with more respect by the polce than a black female detainee who was arrested for slapping a man at a bar who allegedly was hitting on her, (The black women definately got the rawest end of the deal)

I really don't care about the theoretical reasons behind why there may have been any validity behind only strip searching the females and not the males. I really don't care about the mitigating circumstances.

I know livingwood is trying to prov'ide an objective view and interpretation of the circumstances as reported by the media that is not without bias or discrepancy .

The fact of the matter is it happened.

I saw similar injustices face to face on the medical end for years so I am not surprised by what the criminal justice department is capable of.

I just came home from work at 9:30 pm after a 18 hour day so I am not going to do any exhaustive searches to back it up. T

his is just common sense reading of the original post and the associated press article.

I'm going to bed now.

[Guest]

I am not privy to enough information at this point to know where fault lies beyond what appears to be a systemic problem throughout California whereby people -- many people including minors, men and women arrested for many things other than these demonstrations -- have been subjected to this same treatment when processed into County and City jails on misdemeanor charges which is no longer allowed under California State Law (according to what I've read). There are issues with respect to the extent of privacy relative to video taping and personal dignity issues. As a result, there are many lawsuits being settled in and out of court because of this and this is just one of them

What I am seeing from you are assumptions- because you tell me that there are many cases in LA County where prisoners' rights are violated, but then you offer no conclusive proof. Therefore, your other statements don't seem credible enough to warrent merit. If you decide to make grandiose statements such as the one above, back them up with some clear, concrete, tangible evidence to back up your claims, then people will continue to question what you say. One thing I can't stand (and I'm sure others will agree) is when people make a statement that they assert as a fact, but cannot back up the statement with any real proof.

We can all hypothesize, but when it comes to lawsuits, at the end of the day, the side with the clear and convincing proof rules the day. If I were looking at your arguments, and examining the proof, as well as the evidence submitted, then I looked at the arguments of the other people who happen to believe as I do, the evidence is staggeringly and overwhelmingly in support of our hypothesis more than yours.

As far as it being a victory for cyclists, it is a victory for those cyclists- and possibly a victory for Critical Mass. Why? Because the cyclists- the women in particular- received some kind of compensation for being wronged by these police officers, AND recognition that they were wronged. Critical Mass may be a group that people don't agree with, or maybe people don't agree with how they conduct themselves, but the fact of the matter is, when the police get fed up or upset with it, they must, at the very least, treat cyclists fairly and not assume that the detainees or the masses will look the other way or validate the behavior of the police. The manner in which these cyclists were treated, in particular, the women, was improper, at the very least, and unprofessional. The fact that the police were punished for this behavior by the judge with this large monetary award certainly says something- if there had been a pittance award amount, the jury would have been sending a message- look the other way when cyclists' basic rights are violated, and let the police humiliate them as they wish. This is not kosher.

Cbhungry, go on to bed.... sounds like you had a looooooooong day! ;)

Koffee

[TandemGeek]

Here is the link to extracts of the California Penal Code, Section 4030; it's the last code listed at the bottom of the page. I seem to recall you were looking for this.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/4000-4030.html

Here is yet another Google seach string that will bring up a collection of Web based articles dealing with strip searches that were determined to have been ruled illegal in California:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=california+strip+search+misdemeanor+illegal+lawsuit&btnG=Google+Search

I haven't read them all, but more than enough of them to form an opinion which I have expressed. Many of the linked articles appeared in California newspapers so they are as accurate or inaccurate as anything else you may read in a newspaper or hear on the Radio or TV. You'll notice that the cases extend beyond LA County and go back many, many years before the August 15th incident with the cyclists and in some cases continues to be at issue today.

[Guest]

h) No person arrested on a misdemeanor or infraction offense, nor
any minor described in subdivision (b), shall be subjected to a
physical body cavity search except under the authority of a search
warrant issued by a magistrate specifically authorizing the physical
body cavity search.

(m) All strip, visual and physical body cavity searches shall be
conducted in an area of privacy so that the search cannot be observed
by persons not participating in the search. Persons are considered
to be participating in the search if their official duties relative
to search procedure require them to be present at the time the search
is conducted.

(p) Any person who suffers damage or harm as a result of a
violation of this section may bring a civil action to recover actual
damages, or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is greater. In
addition, the court may, in its discretion, award punitive damages,
equitable relief as it deems necessary and proper, and costs,
including reasonable attorney's fees.

All these specifically support the argument AGAINST what you were saying and support what I WAS saying.... so thanks for that link.

The second link you sent had little support for your allegations, and I read them all. First, I suggest that instead of entering a basic search and sending over a link from google, you READ the information provided, cut and paste, and quote where it came from and provide a link. That way, we can clearly see where you are coming from when you include the links. As such, no link proves your point- they mainly prove MY points. One link gives reference to federal laws regarding strip searches, which still supports my argument. At least two other links support my position, but are based in other states, so it does not apply here. One link is for marijauna cases, which CLEARLY doesn't even come close to what we are discussing. And the one sad case you were able to find about a man being strip searched (as opposed to the other 5 or 6 being women- and one of which is in a class action lawsuit involving other women who were illegally strip searched) had no article attached to it! It had expired.

Perhaps part of the problem is that I am able to see this from a legal standpoint because I worked in a law firm for the last six years, and I understand how to apply valid case law and statutes to an argument. It would be difficult to do something of this magnitude without practice.

I am still waiting for the statistics I requested about prison overcrowding resulting in strip search delays, statistics that show that men are strip searched as equally and often as men, and some kind of clear and convincing research specifically regarding California, and more specifically, LA County Jail that supports your statements. Until you come up with something I can sink my teeth into, I'll refrain from responding further to your posts- mainly because I don't have the time to debate something that I don't see to be there. I'm not trying to be petty or curt- I just don't have the time to do the research you haven't done, and I am getting ready to leave for my convention in a few hours, and I have limited time available to comment on statements that are not supported by any credible research, statistical analysis, or other documented sources.

Koffee

[cbhungry]

Because the cyclists- the women in particular- received some kind of compensation for being wronged by these police officers, AND recognition that they were wronged

That pretty much sums it up for me.

I think the judge who ruled in favor of these women harbors a much more intimate and extensive knowledge of the california penal codes than anyone on this forum and acted judisciously and fairly.

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
All these specifically support the argument AGAINST what you were saying and support what I WAS saying.... so thanks for that link.

How is that?

I was in basic agreement that either a stupid protocol was being used to process all convention arrestees in violation of CA law or there were extenuating circumstances.

I have stated that I couldn't understand why the women would have been treated differently from the men and opinied that unless it was just SOP (standard operating procedure) something must have happened or been said in the women's jail to cause it, which doesn't excuse the fact that the SOP would have been in violation of the law and therefore, still wrong.

I pointed out that most state laws require that strip searches be conducted by and only in the presence of same sex since many of the folks responding to this thread had the impression that men had conducted these strip searches -- noting, had this been the case it would have certainly been mentioned in the various story's and personal accounts.

I pointed out the subtle differences between body searches, visual cavity searches and physical cavity searches because the AP story was written in a way that gave readers the same impression you had -- your's obviously reinforced by a personal experience that I am truly sorry to hear about -- that a physical cavity search had been conducted: again, something that would have certainly been mentioned in the storys and personal accounts.

I pointed out that most state laws require a physical body search be conducted based on a search warrant and by medical personnel which, again, none of the story's or accounts discusses being an issue with the strip searches that were conducted.

I found you a copy of the CA Penal Code that reaffirms the very laws we're talking about, reference all of the above, and what it actually says is consistent with what I have previously maintained.

I have said and continue to say that what was done was wrong but am hard pressed to assign blame to anyone without more information.

As for getting into the "it happens to men more than women" or any other aspect of this discussion with respect to why the women were treated differently that leads to the Red Herring -- the hypothetical scenario that you asked for that might explain the difference. You now seem determined to fixate on that and I'll be darned if I know why.

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
The second link you sent had little support for your allegations, and I read them all. First, I suggest that instead of entering a basic search and sending over a link from google, you READ the information provided, cut and paste, and quote where it came from and provide a link. That way, we can clearly see where you are coming from when you include the links. As such, no link proves your point- they mainly prove MY points.

Well, here's one that comes as close as any of them do with respect to what I believe were talking about in the most narrowly defined legal terms since it's a very early case that began to recognize that blanket policies regarding strip searches - at this time for felony offenses and then for misdemeanors - are unconstitutional:

------ start

"Strip-Search Policy of Pomona Police Ruled Unconstitutional
Courts: Woman suspected of having a fake $20 bill brought suit after money was determined to be legitimate.

By DAVID ROSENZWEIG, Times Staff Writer

A Pomona Police Department policy mandating strip-searches of all felony suspects is unconstitutional, a federal judge declared in a tentative ruling Monday. U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson made his remarks in connection with a lawsuit by a 48-year-old woman who was strip-searched after being arrested on suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill.

The $20 bill was later found to be legitimate, but in the meantime, Eugenia Cazares was taken to the Pomona police jail, where she was forced to remove all of her clothing and submit to a strip-search by a female guard. The search included a visual examination of her buttocks, breasts and genital area.

Cazares' lawyer, Stephen Yagman, said his client was humiliated and traumatized by the experience. He sued, charging that the police violated her constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search. Pregerson indicated that he would render his final ruling in a written opinion, but left little doubt how he would decide the issue.
_
Stephen J. Rothans, who represents Police Chief Fred Sanchez in the lawsuit, said Pomona is one of many police agencies in Southern California that have such a policy. "This is a case of first impression," Rothans said. "No other court has ever ruled specifically on the issue."

There have been any number of related rulings on body searches, and Pregerson cited them in concluding that Pomona's policy violated the Constitution.
_
In 1984, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a person arrested for a misdemeanor or other minor infraction could be strip-searched only if jail officials had reason to believe the suspect was hiding contraband. That ruling has since been incorporated into the California penal code.

In 1990, the same federal appeals court declared unconstitutional a Los Angeles Police Department policy of conducting intrusive body cavity searches on all felony suspects. The court did not bar strip-searches in its ruling.

The Pomona Police Department policy challenged by Cazares says that "strip-searches shall be conducted on all felony suspects." It provides for no exceptions.

In court Monday, Pregerson questioned the propriety of strip-searching someone arrested for nonviolent felonies, such as income tax evasion or a fish and game code violation.
"It's not unreasonable that someone passing counterfeit money may also be trafficking in drugs," Rothans responded in an attempt to justify the policy. Pregerson said he was not persuaded by that line of reasoning.

Roger A. Colvin, who represents the city in the suit, argued that the blanket strip-search policy is needed to protect jailers and prisoners. He said the city risked being hauled into court for violating the rights of a prisoner attacked with a weapon smuggled into the jail.

However, Pregerson suggested there are effective techniques that are more reasonable than forcing all prisoners to "completely disrobe, take off their underclothing and spread their buttocks." The judge gave no indication when he would issue his final ruling. LA Times"

---------- end

If you're trying to so narrowly define the case to have the exact same characteristics and then get into a tangent on whether women are disproportionately subjected to these searches than men then you are correct, I haven't pursued a search that is that refined. The point I made is, CA laws regarding strip search laws and police procedures for prisoner processing are and have been in conflict in California and are the basis for many class action and individual law suits. The articles that came up to the links that resulted from the google search thread I provided address that subject.

So, I guess at this point I'd have to ask what it is you think you are FOR and that I'm AGAINST and where I have made statements -- NOT CAVEATED AS BEING HYPOTHETICAL -- that are unsupported.