WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
Saunders, Real Estate, Hamptons
27east.com

4 Comments by Justice


Southampton Village victorious in strip search case

To clarify this situation and offer some truths to the community: The juror above said they weren’t informed on ANY marijuana laws which clearly states under 28 grams of marijuana for a first time offender is a civil citation. Similar to a speeding ticket, a violation under the law. There is only one way to make this amount of marijuana a higher charge, a misdemeanor is any amount under 28 grams in public where marijuana is burning or open to public view.

The juror above also clearly stated. “We did not vote for the police because we thought that a "strip search" performed on Stacey was justified. We had to vote for the police because of the definition of "reasonable suspicion" that was given to us” .

Going back to October of 2008, a panel of three Judges wrote a decision on this case. The appellant judges most certainly know the law on “reasonable suspicion” and on marijuana. Here are some clips of what they wrote:

Thus, even if there were a departmental policy of strip searching all arrestees without making any assessment of particularized circumstances, the relevant question is still: Do the circumstances of Hartline’s arrest s support a reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person? We believe they do not. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the facts of this case could have led a reasonable officer in Officer Gallo’s position to suspect that Hartline was illicitly concealing drugs on her person. Officer Gallo found no useable narcotics in Hartline’s vehicle, nor did he see Hartline take any suspicious actions which might have suggested she was hiding something as he approached her vehicle. Officer Gallo did not notice anything about Hartline’s physical appearance that suggested she was secreting drugs on her person, nor did he engage in a less invasive pat down search that suggested the presence of contraband. Hartline answered every question that Officer Gallo asked her about drugs truthfully, yet Gallo did not even ask Hartline if she had any drugs on her person. Furthermore, Harline had been arrested for nothing more serious than a B-misdemeanor. (“[A] strip search of a person arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs . . . is not justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has drugs . . . hidden on . . . her person. . .This court expressly rejected the proposition that it is reasonable to strip search every inmate booked on a drug related charge. (arrest for misdemeanor drug offense does not support reasonable suspicion necessary to justify strip search). ......but rather to the case’s list of “factors which may be taken into account in determining the issue of [the] reasonableness” of a search, including: (1) excessive nervousness; (2) unusual conduct; (3) an informant’s tip; (4) computerized information showing pertinent criminal propensities; (5) loose-fitting or bulky clothing; (6) an itinerary suggestive of wrongdoing; (7) discovery of incriminating matter during routine searches; (8) lack of employment or a claim of self-employment; (9) needle marks or other indications of drug addiction; (10) information derived from the search or conduct of a traveling companion; (11) inadequate luggage; and (12) evasive or contradictory answers. Id. at 976-77. However, of these factors, only the fifth and seventh apply in this case, and, in context, neither gave strong support for an inference that Hartline was secreting drugs on her person, much less in her person. Ultimately, if the facts of this case amount to reasonable suspicion, then strip searches will become commonplace. Given the uniquely intrusive nature of strip searches, as well as the multitude of less invasive investigative technique s available to officers confronted by misdemeanor offenders, that result would be unacceptable in any society that takes privacy and bodily integrity seriously. Thus, we must conclude that Hartline’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because she was subjected to a strip search by the Southampton Police in the absence of reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person. ........ in this case, we conclude without hesitation that Hartline’s rights were violated.

The jury also ONLY got to see SHVPD rules and procedures on prisoner safety and handling. The SHVPD has absolute nothing on strip searches in their 4 page general order. The jury never got the opportunity to see Suffolk County’s 25 page general order that clearly states: Strip Searches: The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value in our society, and strip searches is a significant intrusion into an individual’s personal privacy. Therefore, strip searches should never be undertaken routinely, and never without clear legal justification.

There is also one particular comment on this page that need to be addressed, while most aren’t worth the time responding to one portion clearly is: Happy said… “Fact is she was smoking pot in a "crack pipe" as her own stepfather testified too! That is for sure reasonably suspicion” Happy, have you read the applets court’s decision - clearly states: (“[A] strip search of a person arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs . . . is not justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has drugs . . . hidden on . . . her person.) Stacey Hartline was never charged with being under the influence nor would that “for sure” be reasonable suspicion. I pray you’re not an officer of the law Happy.

Every citizen needs to know they have rights. If Miranda rights are for questioning, there needs to be rights read for strip searching. If there is no such law one needs to be put in effect right this second. If any person is ever getting strip searched by the SHVPD, ask and demand the camera in the cell is covered in some way before you take one item of cloths off.

If there is ever a person who doesn’t get their rights read to you, please always remember you have rights until you are proven guilty in a court of law. Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Miranda right to remain silent. Know your rights and you will not be abused.

Finally, I am appalled and horrified at this verdict and the fact the jury only got a quarter of the evidence they needed to make an informed decision. There is also something to be said about Hartline’s step father being a 27 year veteran of the Southampton Town police and having this done to his daughter. It is apparent the SHVPD has no regard. At the least, the professional courtesy extended could have been that Hartline could have kept her panties on. There was testimony by the defendants that the males keep their boxers on. I can tell the public that is very far from what happened to Ms. Hartline.

" Jun 25, 09 3:12 PM

Appeals court determines woman's lawsuit over strip search should be revisited

To clarify this situation and offer some truths to the community: The juror above said they weren’t informed on ANY marijuana laws which clearly states under 28 grams of marijuana for a first time offender is a civil citation. Similar to a speeding ticket, a violation under the law. There is only one way to make this amount of marijuana a higher charge, a misdemeanor is any amount under 28 grams in public where marijuana is burning or open to public view.

The juror above also clearly stated. “We did not vote for the police because we thought that a "strip search" performed on Stacey was justified. We had to vote for the police because of the definition of "reasonable suspicion" that was given to us” .

Going back to October of 2008, a panel of three Judges wrote a decision on this case. The appellant judges most certainly know the law on “reasonable suspicion” and on marijuana. Here are some clips of what they wrote:

Thus, even if there were a departmental policy of strip searching all arrestees without making any assessment of particularized circumstances, the relevant question is still: Do the circumstances of Hartline’s arrest s support a reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person? We believe they do not. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the facts of this case could have led a reasonable officer in Officer Gallo’s position to suspect that Hartline was illicitly concealing drugs on her person. Officer Gallo found no useable narcotics in Hartline’s vehicle, nor did he see Hartline take any suspicious actions which might have suggested she was hiding something as he approached her vehicle. Officer Gallo did not notice anything about Hartline’s physical appearance that suggested she was secreting drugs on her person, nor did he engage in a less invasive pat down search that suggested the presence of contraband. Hartline answered every question that Officer Gallo asked her about drugs truthfully, yet Gallo did not even ask Hartline if she had any drugs on her person. Furthermore, Harline had been arrested for nothing more serious than a B-misdemeanor. (“[A] strip search of a person arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs . . . is not justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has drugs . . . hidden on . . . her person. . .This court expressly rejected the proposition that it is reasonable to strip search every inmate booked on a drug related charge. (arrest for misdemeanor drug offense does not support reasonable suspicion necessary to justify strip search). ......but rather to the case’s list of “factors which may be taken into account in determining the issue of [the] reasonableness” of a search, including: (1) excessive nervousness; (2) unusual conduct; (3) an informant’s tip; (4) computerized information showing pertinent criminal propensities; (5) loose-fitting or bulky clothing; (6) an itinerary suggestive of wrongdoing; (7) discovery of incriminating matter during routine searches; (8) lack of employment or a claim of self-employment; (9) needle marks or other indications of drug addiction; (10) information derived from the search or conduct of a traveling companion; (11) inadequate luggage; and (12) evasive or contradictory answers. Id. at 976-77. However, of these factors, only the fifth and seventh apply in this case, and, in context, neither gave strong support for an inference that Hartline was secreting drugs on her person, much less in her person. Ultimately, if the facts of this case amount to reasonable suspicion, then strip searches will become commonplace. Given the uniquely intrusive nature of strip searches, as well as the multitude of less invasive investigative technique s available to officers confronted by misdemeanor offenders, that result would be unacceptable in any society that takes privacy and bodily integrity seriously. Thus, we must conclude that Hartline’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because she was subjected to a strip search by the Southampton Police in the absence of reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person. ........ in this case, we conclude without hesitation that Hartline’s rights were violated.

The jury also ONLY got to see SHVPD rules and procedures on prisoner safety and handling. The SHVPD has absolute nothing on strip searches in their 4 page general order. The jury never got the opportunity to see Suffolk County’s 25 page general order that clearly states: Strip Searches: The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value in our society, and strip searches is a significant intrusion into an individual’s personal privacy. Therefore, strip searches should never be undertaken routinely, and never without clear legal justification.

There is also one particular comment on this page that need to be addressed, while most aren’t worth the time responding to one portion clearly is: Happy said… “Fact is she was smoking pot in a "crack pipe" as her own stepfather testified too! That is for sure reasonably suspicion” Happy, have you read the applets court’s decision - clearly states: (“[A] strip search of a person arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs . . . is not justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has drugs . . . hidden on . . . her person.) Stacey Hartline was never charged with being under the influence nor would that “for sure” be reasonable suspicion. I pray you’re not an officer of the law Happy.

Every citizen needs to know they have rights. If Miranda rights are for questioning, there needs to be rights read for strip searching. If there is no such law one needs to be put in effect right this second. If any person is ever getting strip searched by the SHVPD, ask and demand the camera in the cell is covered in some way before you take one item of cloths off.

If there is ever a person who doesn’t get their rights read to you, please always remember you have rights until you are proven guilty in a court of law. Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Miranda right to remain silent. Know your rights and you will not be abused.

Finally, I am appalled and horrified at this verdict and the fact the jury only got a quarter of the evidence they needed to make an informed decision. There is also something to be said about Hartline’s step father being a 27 year veteran of the Southampton Town police and having this done to his daughter. It is apparent the SHVPD has no regard. At the least, the professional courtesy extended could have been that Hartline could have kept her panties on. There was testimony by the defendants that the males keep their boxers on. I can tell the public that is very far from what happened to Ms. Hartline.
" Jun 25, 09 5:45 PM

Appeals court favors woman suing Southampton Village Police

To clarify this situation and offer some truths to the community: The juror above said they weren’t informed on ANY marijuana laws which clearly states under 28 grams of marijuana for a first time offender is a civil citation. Similar to a speeding ticket, a violation under the law. There is only one way to make this amount of marijuana a higher charge, a misdemeanor is any amount under 28 grams in public where marijuana is burning or open to public view.

The juror above also clearly stated. “We did not vote for the police because we thought that a "strip search" performed on Stacey was justified. We had to vote for the police because of the definition of "reasonable suspicion" that was given to us” .

Going back to October of 2008, a panel of three Judges wrote a decision on this case. The appellant judges most certainly know the law on “reasonable suspicion” and on marijuana. Here are some clips of what they wrote:

Thus, even if there were a departmental policy of strip searching all arrestees without making any assessment of particularized circumstances, the relevant question is still: Do the circumstances of Hartline’s arrest s support a reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person? We believe they do not. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the facts of this case could have led a reasonable officer in Officer Gallo’s position to suspect that Hartline was illicitly concealing drugs on her person. Officer Gallo found no useable narcotics in Hartline’s vehicle, nor did he see Hartline take any suspicious actions which might have suggested she was hiding something as he approached her vehicle. Officer Gallo did not notice anything about Hartline’s physical appearance that suggested she was secreting drugs on her person, nor did he engage in a less invasive pat down search that suggested the presence of contraband. Hartline answered every question that Officer Gallo asked her about drugs truthfully, yet Gallo did not even ask Hartline if she had any drugs on her person. Furthermore, Harline had been arrested for nothing more serious than a B-misdemeanor. (“[A] strip search of a person arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs . . . is not justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has drugs . . . hidden on . . . her person. . .This court expressly rejected the proposition that it is reasonable to strip search every inmate booked on a drug related charge. (arrest for misdemeanor drug offense does not support reasonable suspicion necessary to justify strip search). ......but rather to the case’s list of “factors which may be taken into account in determining the issue of [the] reasonableness” of a search, including: (1) excessive nervousness; (2) unusual conduct; (3) an informant’s tip; (4) computerized information showing pertinent criminal propensities; (5) loose-fitting or bulky clothing; (6) an itinerary suggestive of wrongdoing; (7) discovery of incriminating matter during routine searches; (8) lack of employment or a claim of self-employment; (9) needle marks or other indications of drug addiction; (10) information derived from the search or conduct of a traveling companion; (11) inadequate luggage; and (12) evasive or contradictory answers. Id. at 976-77. However, of these factors, only the fifth and seventh apply in this case, and, in context, neither gave strong support for an inference that Hartline was secreting drugs on her person, much less in her person. Ultimately, if the facts of this case amount to reasonable suspicion, then strip searches will become commonplace. Given the uniquely intrusive nature of strip searches, as well as the multitude of less invasive investigative technique s available to officers confronted by misdemeanor offenders, that result would be unacceptable in any society that takes privacy and bodily integrity seriously. Thus, we must conclude that Hartline’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because she was subjected to a strip search by the Southampton Police in the absence of reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person. ........ in this case, we conclude without hesitation that Hartline’s rights were violated.

The jury also ONLY got to see SHVPD rules and procedures on prisoner safety and handling. The SHVPD has absolute nothing on strip searches in their 4 page general order. The jury never got the opportunity to see Suffolk County’s 25 page general order that clearly states: Strip Searches: The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value in our society, and strip searches is a significant intrusion into an individual’s personal privacy. Therefore, strip searches should never be undertaken routinely, and never without clear legal justification.

There is also one particular comment on this page that need to be addressed, while most aren’t worth the time responding to one portion clearly is: Happy said… “Fact is she was smoking pot in a "crack pipe" as her own stepfather testified too! That is for sure reasonably suspicion” Happy, have you read the applets court’s decision - clearly states: (“[A] strip search of a person arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs . . . is not justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has drugs . . . hidden on . . . her person.) Stacey Hartline was never charged with being under the influence nor would that “for sure” be reasonable suspicion. I pray you’re not an officer of the law Happy.

Every citizen needs to know they have rights. If Miranda rights are for questioning, there needs to be rights read for strip searching. If there is no such law one needs to be put in effect right this second. If any person is ever getting strip searched by the SHVPD, ask and demand the camera in the cell is covered in some way before you take one item of cloths off.

If there is ever a person who doesn’t get their rights read to you, please always remember you have rights until you are proven guilty in a court of law. Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Miranda right to remain silent. Know your rights and you will not be abused.

Finally, I am appalled and horrified at this verdict and the fact the jury only got a quarter of the evidence they needed to make an informed decision. There is also something to be said about Hartline’s step father being a 27 year veteran of the Southampton Town police and having this done to his daughter. It is apparent the SHVPD has no regard. At the least, the professional courtesy extended could have been that Hartline could have kept her panties on. There was testimony by the defendants that the males keep their boxers on. I can tell the public that is very far from what happened to Ms. Hartline.
" Jun 25, 09 5:45 PM

Southampton Village mayor and police chief at odds over officers' secondary employment applications

Sure, I’ll happily explain the potential scandal in having a second job.. The SHVPD’s officers make 74-150K per year (many with zero college education) There are quite a few officers that have second jobs as house watchers & security. Many of their clients are located within the seven square miles they get paid 74-150K to patrol. The officers are paid by tax dollars. The potential scandal is the officers working their second jobs while getting paid by the Village. 10-4?" Mar 19, 10 3:26 PM