/facepalm.

No. Please by all that is holy tell me this is a hoax. Even ultra-liberal who believe that white-men-are-the-root-cause-of-all-evil-and-force-law-abiding-men-and-women-to-become-criminals can possibly think that it is a violation of civil rights to search prisoners.

Are the 2 judges living in some sort of mystic tower never seeing reality? I imagine the next thing would be the metal detectors at the courts where these judges rule. That is a search. Shouldn't that be illegal?

If I had been arrested for refusing to pay a city fine I would think I could do without a strip search.

Keeping strip searches to people who have done crimes in which violence and drugs are actually involved isn't quite as crazy as you're making it sound.

Good Lord this is asinine.

So some sh*thead can stick a shank in a toothbrush carrier, hide it rectally, then get arrested for not paying a parking ticket...then pass said weapon off to someone else already in jail. Or the same thing except it's drugs coming in. People are used as mules all the time. The judges in question need to act as prison guards for a month so they can see what morons they are.

There is a solution though. X-ray machines. Use them to check for the presence of contraband in their body. If you're concerned about radiation, there's always the so-called "bomb sniffer". If it can detect trace amounts of explosives, it should be able to detect drugs and firearms (and why not cell-phones?).

Of course installing those at every prison will cost millions. I wonder how many prison guards would have to be killed before it gets implemented.

I guess everyone in the bay area and other cities of the like can feel a little less safe when going to bed at night knowing these are the types of people in charge.

I find that the devil is often in the details and when it comes to court cases, the details matter immensely. I'd like to actually read the court decision for myself. As they said, they were confirming precedent almost 25 years old, which begs the question of what the technical side was that brought them to that decision, why that decision wasn't easily overturned in 25 years, etc. It's just too easy to play armchair quarterback in technical cases involving criminals. It's a lot like playing armchair mathematician.