I wrote the word "ready". Meaning she was not into having somebody touching her privates/body.Just let us say it is not very pleasent at all. It does really HURT.

The hospital reached a $1.1 million settlement.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...an-over-search

Yeah. I'm a bit different--I don't give a hoot about the microwave scanners, but I would much prefer to strip naked than get a genital pat-down.

A failed state. Let the natives sort it out among themselves.

US v Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013)

Border agents and prison guards, unlike other cops and definitely unlike TSA, can search without any suspicion whatsoever. They require only reasonable suspicion for a highly invasive search such as in-depth computer forensics.

They can detain you, without suspicion, long enough for you to e.g. defecate out whatever you might be carrying in your stomach. They can strip search w/ reasonable suspicion.

Probable cause is the standard for an arrest, and search incident to arrest can include mandatory strip search.

This includes citizens and non-citizens. Only difference is citizens have an absolute right to enter the country; non-citizens can get turned away or deported after all that. But citizens can still be detained, searched, poop-screened, etc. at CBP's discretion.

Again, important to underscore that this only applies to CBP and only when entering the US, and to prison officials searching prisoners (not visitors; there was a recent case on that where the visitor won after they got strip-searched). TSA has nothing remotely resembling such authority.

Also, here's a counter-example: cops (not CBP) forcibly strip-searching, anally searching, and ordering a colonoscopy on someone on no real suspicion.

They ended up paying $1.6M.

The approved method (if you have detention authority to begin with) is simple: make someone use a bucket for about 24 hours. It'll come out. No invasion necessary. It's fairly humiliating, but less so than most alternatives…

You called a strip search "brutality." Ergo you're someone who uses hyperbole in discussions like this.

I didn't suggest it was "acceptable," I said the action didn't qualify as "brutality."

I guess you are a male. Cause most females (not everbody) would say this is brutal.
Forcing their way into to a body. That is sick Rape. Brutal. I am so happy it is not me.

Have you ever been forced into a strip search? I haven't, but I'm fairly certain if I ever was I'd consider it brutal.

The word has clearly lost its meaning. Once upon a time it was reserved for things like actual torture, removal of body extremities, physical beatings and similar things. But I suppose in this age we've become inured to hyperbole. I'd use the adjectives "embarrassing," "unnerving," "unpleasant," even "humiliating" - but not brutal. But it's semantics.

Again - I'm not defending the cavity search, as I don't know the background of why it was done. Such things should be extremely rare (i.e., at a lower rate than that of smuggling contraband in body cavities). I will say that under some circumstances a cavity search might well be warranted, and that the reaction of a trained detection animal might be an appropriate rationale used to justify it. And given the undoubted cost and inconvenience to the system that such an offsite search entails, I don't think this particular search was undertaken without considerable thought beforehand. Ultimately it was fruitless to the security entities and (at the very least) very unpleasant and embarrassing to the passenger.

There are a lot of good arguments for abandoning the "war against drugs." The outcome of this unfortunate case is one of the better ones.

A close examination of the meaning of the word brutal would show that a search that involved involuntary penetration of a persons would fit some parts of that definition.

To the person on the recieving end of that search brutal is a fitting descriptor.

"Involuntary penetration of a person" is a peculiar way to characterize a genital exam given by a physician, even if the person did not want to be so examined. But whatever. You all use the word however you wish.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/brutal

Why not use the word as it is currently defined?

And yes, all of the searches were involuntary including the vaginal and rectal search.

I have. (I won't elaborate on the why and how, but they didn't touch me; instead they used flashlights and told me what to do.)

It felt clinical, embarrassing, degrading, demeaning, de-individuating, and dissociative… but not 'brutal'.

Had I been touched, that would probably have been significantly worse, though still not 'brutal'.

If I were female, I'm pretty sure it would have been much worse — possibly 'brutal' — but I'm not, so I defer to those who are to speak to that experience.

Oh, easy-peasy: maintain a presence that serves to deter most people from doing wrong things and when that doesn't work, determine (sometimes accurately, sometimes not) who did a wrong thing, collect evidence of the transgression and then refer the evidence to the Crown (prosecutors) for further action to punish the wrong doers. Society benefits from less crime and knowing that bad people will be punished.

at least, that's how its supposed to work.....

That's both incorrect and nonsensical.

I called nonconsensual vaginal and anal penetration while handcuffed to a table plus forced defecation under observation the violent and inhumane act that it is. You minimize what happened by electing to call it a "strip search." A strip search certainly doesn't take six hours.

If civilians had done this to her, it would be considered a violent crime.

If the government had done this to her at a military base, it would be considered torture.

Are you okay with prison rape perchance?