I am on the same page regarding individual liberties over the power of the state. My question was just to raise the issue that law enforcement should not be held liable for the results.

>Policies and practices should be in place to ensure fundamental Constitutional rights are upheld. That is the basis of the Constitution, namely, limiting the power of the State. Instead we are continuously adapting the Constitution to ensure the power of the State.
>
>I forgot to post the link to the opinion :
>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf
>
>>I certainly get the argument against the search. That said :
>>
>>Fellow is arrested for unpaid parking tickets, whatever. No reason to think he concealing a dangerous weapon. He is put in the tank with other people. He kills someone with a razorblade he has taped to his thigh.
>>
>>Is there legal liability on the part of the jail for putting those other prisoners in a potentially dangerous environment with exercising due diligence?
>>
>>And if not, why?
>>
>>>I'm not sure if this was already posted but just in case you missed it, the Supreme Court has completely done away with the 4th amendment.
>>>
>>>The Supreme Court ruled Monday that jailers may subject people arrested for minor offenses to invasive strip searches, siding with security needs over privacy rights.
>>>http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/supreme_court_upholds_jails_st.html
>>>
>>>4th Amendment : The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>>>
>>>Franklin : They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.