Man arrested mistakenly, imprisoned for a week and strip searched twice, but his rights were not violated.
I realize that I am in no way a legal scholar. I further realize that I have a liberal bias in my opinions. But I don' see any way that this can be justified within the bounds of the 4th amendment. If "mistaken arrest followed by invasive search" isn't the very definition of "unreasonable search and seizure" then what is exactly?
Further, the justification offered by the court: "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," seems to be the fundamental purpose of that amendment. Anyone can be a criminal. But my understanding of our entire justice system is that it's predicated on the notion that the government cannot investigate everyone simply as a precaution.
Am I overreacting to this? Is there something that my legal naivette is missing?