I have heard from a lot of people and have seen blogged around here the accusation that Judge Alito supports the strip searching of little girls. Renegade says it alot on his Blog "outside the Box." here is what he said today:

"And Judge Alito backs this up in two ways. First, he voted in favor of the strip search of a ten year old girl, even though she was not listed on the search warrant, which is required BY LAW, and even though such a search is a direct and flagrant violation of the right of every American to be secure in their persons. Was she secure in her person? And how can ANYONE justify strip searching a ten year old little girl?

"Do you fully understand what that sort of search entails? We're not talking here about just removing her clothes. She was told, along with her mother, to turn around and bend over. This is what they do when they do a body cavity search. She was, in fact, molested. Doesn't matter if you think it's a legal technicality, in her little girl's mind, someone was making physical contact with the most intimate part of her body against her will."

I have to say first, Renegade backed up his assertion with the court document that supposedly backed up the claim. To see it, please visit his blog at: http://outsidethebox.blogstream.com/

However, he should have known that someone would actually read it.

The case was heard before circuit court judges Alito, Ambro and Chertoff. It involved a police search for drugs at the home of an alledged drug dealer. At question was the warrant that the officers relied on to perform the search. The cover page of the warrant did not say to seacrh all occupants but the attached affidavit did.

Here are judge Alito's own words:

"First, the best reading of the
warrant is that it authorized the search of
any persons found on the premises.
Second, even if the warrant did not contain
such authorization, a reasonable police
officer could certainly have read the
warrant as doing so, and therefore the
appellants are entitled to qualified
immunity."

For liberals to say that this decision clearly demonstrates that Alito doesn't support the 4th amendment is ridiculous.

In typical liberal style, the story was embellished just a little bit. More from the document:

"The officers decided to search Jane
and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for
the meter patrol officer. When she
arrived, the female officer removed both
Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs
bathroom. They were instructed to empty
their pockets and lift their shirts. The
female officer patted their pockets. She
then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their
pants and turn around. No contraband
was found. With the search completed,
both Jane and Mary Doe were returned to
the ground floor to await the end of the
search."

Humiliating, absolutely. Molestation, not a chance.

The officers had the right to search the mother and the daughter because the affadavit clearly said "and all occupants of the home." It wasn't on the cover of the warrant because "all occupants of the home" didn't fit in the little bearocratic box. Did the magistrate sugn the warrant without reading all the information? Are the officers supposed to assume that magistrate didn't take the document seriously enough to read the whole thing. Common!

They were in their home, dad's selling drugs (of course they have no clue). The cops come, search the home, search the occupants. Happens all the time.

It comes down to a typo. They had the warrant, they had probable cause. Cops were going to get the bad guys. sSometimes even a 10 year old has to drop her pants to prove she's not packin'.