In accordance with our current unit, here’s a clear example of the judicial branch’s power to interpret the Constitution.
In 2004, Charles Byrd was arrested and detained at a low-security jail in Phoenix, Arizona. Because of recent fights and suspicions of smuggled goods in the facility, corrections officers conducted a non-emergency strip search of the jail’s 90 inmates. The detainees had to remove all of their clothing except their boxers. Byrd and three others were taken into a separate room and searched by detention officer training academy cadets. 10 to 15 officers were present in the room at the time, even though only the cadets conducted the searches. The cadet who searched Byrd was a female; and according to him, the search included some inappropriate touching of his private parts. In the county, although female prisoners may only be searched by female officers, male prisoners may be searched by officers of either gender.
Byrd proceeded to file a lawsuit, claiming that “his due process rights and his right against unreasonable searches were violated.” Initially, the court dismissed his claims. But on Thursday, a federal appeals court in our very own San Francisco “concluded such cross-gender searches are ‘unreasonable’ and unconstitutional.” The appeals court said it was “‘recognizing the privacy interest of inmates in their personal dignity’ to be free from searches by someone from the opposite sex.” The county has the option of appealing the case to the Supreme Court.
Well, that’s the court system for you. It may take a while (the search occurred in 2004…), but at least it clears up questions of constitutionality. It’s interesting to think that our country still rules itself in accordance with a document that was written over 200 years ago.
Any thoughts? I was particularly surprised by the different treatment of male and female inmates. It seems like a no-brainer that both sexes should have equal privacy when it comes to searches. Then again, it also seems like a no-brainer that men and women should be given equal pay for equal work…
Haha. It IS quite interesting that our country is, and can, be ruled in accordance with a set of laws written such a long time ago. There are obviously some things that many people wish could be different, but I think it's just too much of a headache to consider putting more exceptions into the Constitution or any state constitutions (since we have the whole Supremacy Clause thing anyway) to consider changing the way we have governed ourselves. But I also feel that same-sex searches (especially strip searches) is a "duh" thing. It's a little ridiculous that it takes a court (an appeals one, at that) to state what the obvious ruling should be on this issue. In regards to equal pay, there are reasons for why it exists today (I think it's extremely unfair and completely unconstitutional, but, really, someone could write a paper detailing the historical prejudices women have faced), but I can't even think of a reason why men would be subjected to body searches by females. All I can say is that I'm glad that now there's clarification.
1 comment:
Haha. It IS quite interesting that our country is, and can, be ruled in accordance with a set of laws written such a long time ago. There are obviously some things that many people wish could be different, but I think it's just too much of a headache to consider putting more exceptions into the Constitution or any state constitutions (since we have the whole Supremacy Clause thing anyway) to consider changing the way we have governed ourselves.
But I also feel that same-sex searches (especially strip searches) is a "duh" thing. It's a little ridiculous that it takes a court (an appeals one, at that) to state what the obvious ruling should be on this issue. In regards to equal pay, there are reasons for why it exists today (I think it's extremely unfair and completely unconstitutional, but, really, someone could write a paper detailing the historical prejudices women have faced), but I can't even think of a reason why men would be subjected to body searches by females. All I can say is that I'm glad that now there's clarification.
Post a Comment