https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/high-court-rules-officials-can-be-sued-for-violating-state-constitutional-rights-2702930/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=most_read&utm_source=lvrj

This generally means that you can bring claims against Nevada state officials for some Nevada Constitution violations (in this case, improper searches). These claims can be brought in addition to, or instead of, claims for violations of the United States Constitution (in this case the court found that prison officials could be sued under the Nevada Constitution for an alleged improper search, even though their Sec 1983/4th Amendment claims had been resolved through the application of qualified immunity in federal court.

These claims may be subject to Nevada's tort caps (undecided) but they are specifically not subject to qualified immunity (the doctrine that eliminates 90% of federal civil rights claims). These claims do not require the award of attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff as is common for Sec. 1983 federal claims, but you may be able to get fees through the use of an offer of judgment.

Bottom line – you may be able to sue state officials and get money damages when those state officials violate your Nevada Constitutional rights, whereas in the past you could only sue state actors for money damages for violating your rights under the United States Constitution, and most of the time, those claims were resolved in favor of the state actors under the judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity.

I guess that's the rub. You want the government to protect you and are willing to be less free (not sure why because in actuality rather than anecdotally the crime rate int he U.S. has been in a 30-year free fall (with the exception of the pandemic blip https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/crime-rate-statistics )). Others want to be safe from the government and more free. China is a pretty safe society, but to me an oppressive government is not worth the safety.

The idea that we have to sacrifice the right to be free from government intrusion or violence to have qualified police is also misguided and seems like a political ad from the 90s. Cops won't sit on their hands because they don't pay the judgments (they are indemnified under state law), their unions protect them from discipline when they act appropriately (and often when they don't), and because 98% of them are good people who try to do the right thing.

That's probably not true – that LE does not make "us" (I recognize this is not in the same proportion based on demographics) safer – (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens.) However, I will agree that where community is primarily responsible for safety, there is no, or limited, involuntary rights tradeoff. And in any event, I don't place safety as the greatest priority either.

Has anyone visited someone in prison? It is no different than going through airport security (i.e. TSA). You give up a lot of rights. Nothing more humiliating than being patted down in front of everyone. The price we pay to catch folks carrying weapons on planes to do harm. The same is with prisons. You consent to such instrusions. The answer is that presumably you can leave without being stripped searched. The Department of Corrections has to make sure contraband is not being slipped into prisons. Common occurence. Prisons are pervasively regulated. The inmates, staff and visitors are subjected to all kinds of intrusions. This Supreme Court decision was unnecessary and is only going to cause more litigation over its scope.

10:07 am. That's not the correct statement of law: "The answer is that presumably you can leave without being stripped searched."

The correct statement of law is that "Prisoners may be subjected to visual body cavity strip searches based on “reasonable suspicion” in order “to protect prisons and jails from smuggled weapons, drugs or other contraband which pose a threat to the safety and security of penal institutions." Cates v. Stroud, 976 F.3d 972, 980 (9th Cir. 2020). There are other gems in the decision protecting the rights of prison visitors from unreasonable searches.

You appear have misread the below statement of law which does not say you can consent to strip search or leave, but rather says that even if the prison has reasonable suspicion to search you, you can avoid the search by leaving; however, no strip search can occur without reasonable suspicion. Period.

Because the ability of prison officials to conduct strip searches of visitors based on reasonable suspicion is premised on the need to prevent introduction of contraband into the prison, a search of a visitor who no longer intends to enter the portion of the prison where contact with a prisoner is possible, or who was leaving the prison, must rely on another justification. Ordinarily, a visitor cannot introduce contraband into the prison simply by appearing in the administrative area of the prison. If prison officials have reasonable suspicion that such a visitor is carrying contraband, the prison's security needs would justify a strip search only if the visitor insists on access to a part of the prison where transfer of contraband to a prisoner would be possible. If the visitor would prefer to leave the prison without such access, the prison's security needs can be satisfied by simply letting the visitor depart.

Cates v. Stroud, 976 F.3d 972, 982 (9th Cir. 2020)

The case was about State COs.

11:35 AM–The facts on the strip search case are not really clear. That being said, one can only question any precedent of the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.

I second this. My “Dry January” turned into far longer than a month. I didn’t think my life could get better or alcohol was impacting me, but after those many months, I am glad to say I was wrong. Now I don’t drink nearly as much as before.

Alternate day fasting is your friend. 36 hour fast (hard fast, too- black coffee, water, and nothing more), 8 hour eating window. Repeat until you hit the weight you want.

3:03, the good news for what you describe is it sounds like it will definitely work quite well for most folks–initially.

But with a lot of more extreme and off the grid diets there are two major immediate concerns.

First, is it healthy. And the answer is probably not for people who are older and/or already have some health concerns.

The second concern which applies to more extreme diets such as this is that one cannot maintain this type of situation as an ongoing life-style, and thus the poundage returns.

With some diets which are geared to permanently change a lifestyle, such as lower carb diets, it is possible to continue with that as a new life norm and keep the weight off.

But with the kind of diet you describe, it sounds like great progress within a short period, but, again, simply not practical over time to maintain anything remotely like the eating cycle you describe.

3:03 is absolutely on the level. I have a physician client who swears by this stuff.

The only "diety" advice I can give is: stop drinking calories. Cutting out all the soda, lattes, etc., could cut a significant amount of calories, without feeling like you're giving up much. Replace with seltzer water, black coffee or tea, as needed. As for alcohol, that's also an obvious one to cut, but I personally still indulge, just try to do so in moderation.

Intermittent fasting works. I don’t eat between 7:30 pm and 11:30am. It shifts your metabolism and if you try to eat unprocessed foods, you’ll lose weight. Been doing it for over a year and lost 40 pounds.