Civil Liability
of Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel

     Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Search and Seizure: Person

     Monthly Law Journal Article: No Warrant Needed to Search a Cell Phone Found on an Arrestee, 2011 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 401.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Search Incident to Arrest – Drug Dealers, 2011 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 401.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Drawing and Pointing Weapons During a Terry Investigative Stop, 2013 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.

     A man leaving a train station was confronted by a plainclothes police officer who, with the assistance of other plainclothes officers, forced him to the ground. He was charged with resisting arrest and was acquitted, then sued the officers and the city for excessive use of force and malicious prosecution. He claimed the first officer had not identified himself as police, which the officer disputed, claiming that when he identified himself the plaintiff had fled to avoid being frisked. A federal appeals court overturned a verdict for the defendants. The trial court properly admitted evidence of the marijuana found in the plaintiff’s pocket. While the marijuana was unknown to the officers at the time, it arguably tended to corroborate their account of his behavior. The jury instructions on Terry investigatory stops, however, were inadequate. Over objection, the court instructed the jury only on investigatory stops but not frisks. The officer’s testimony indicated that he was starting a frisk when he first approached the plaintiff and that he did not have reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. The plaintiff was entitled to have the jury know that the attempted frisk, which produced the use of force, was unjustified. Further, the jury asked whether plainclothes officers must identify themselves when conducting a stop. The trial judge said no, while in all but the most unusual circumstances, where identification would itself make the situation more dangerous, plainclothes officers must identify themselves when initiating a stop. These errors were not harmless, requiring further proceedings. Doornbos v. City of Chicago, #16-1770, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 15696 (7th Cir.).

     After receiving an anonymous tip that an African-American man dressed in a yellow shirt was selling heroin on a particular corner. While the tip was uncorroborated, two detectives drove to the intersection, where they saw a man fitting the description in the tip. The man was talking to his aunt in a driveway. He identified himself without objection, was frisked, and immediately complied with a request to remove his right hand from his pocket. During the frisk, a detective felt keys and what he described as a soft bulge that felt like tissue. It was immediately apparent that neither item was a weapon. The detective emptied the man’s pocket, removed keys, tissues, a photo ID, and letters. He then examined the keychain’s attached flashlight, which he found had been hollowed out and contained four small baggies with a substance he believed was heroin. The man was charged with possession of heroin. A Wisconsin state court suppressed the evidence and dismissed all charges, and the arrestee sued.  The trial court granted the detectives summary judgment, stating that “no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated.” A federal appeals court reversed, holding that the trial judge improperly assumed disputed facts in finding the detectives’ actions permissible under Terry v. Ohio. #67, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). There were genuine disputes of fact including whether the tip's source was anonymous, whether the plaintiff took any action that was sufficiently suspicious to justify the stop, and whether the defendants had any other information that provided at least reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and frisk. Beal v. Beller, #14-2628, 847 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2017).
     Two police officers initiated contact with a man who was in a city park after closing time and riding his bicycle there in the dark without a headlight. The man fled, and they pursued, detained, and searched him, finding cocaine. He was arrested for the drugs, resisting, and using a weapon in a fight. A jury could not reach a verdict on the drug charge and acquitted him of the other charges. The arrestee, an African-American, claimed that the officers violated state civil rights statutes by using excessive force during his arrest, pulling his underwear into a “wedgie” while searching him, and conducting a nonconsensual physical body cavity search of his rectum. The arrestee had a claim under one of these statutes, even if the officers had probable cause for an arrest, because alleged roadside body cavity searches necessarily amounted to intentional conduct separate and independent from a lawful arrest for being in a park after it closed, riding a bicycle in the dark without a headlight, or for resisting. There was a triable issue as to whether officers searched the plaintiff's rectum because body-worn camera footage showed the officers manipulating the plaintiff's underwear using their hands in the vicinity of his partially exposed buttocks. Simmons v. Super. Ct.. #D070734, 7 Cal. App. 5th 1113, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 1170.

     Officers stopped a minor motorist for a broken tail light, but it turned into a DUI investigation when alcohol was smelled within the vehicle. A federal appeals court held that the officers had arguable probable cause for the stop and a DUI investigation and arrest, given the totality of the circumstances, the relatively low .02 BAC limit under the minor DUI statute, and the absence of judicial decisions interpreting that statute. They were therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the claim that they violated the driver's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and as to the claim that they violated the driver's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches when she was frisked before being placed in the patrol car, as the search was incident to a lawful arrest.  Schaffer v. Beringer, #15-3438, 842 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2016).
     Two officers settled claims with two women stopped in a car who were subjected to body cavity searches at the scene by the female officers in a quest to find drugs after marijuana was smelled. On claims for bystander liability against a third officer who was present, the trial court denied qualified immunity. At the time of the incident, it was clearly established in the Fifth Circuit that an officer could be liable as a bystander in a case involving excessive force if he knew a constitutional violation was taking place and had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm. The trial court did not err in finding that excessive force had not been waived. In this case, while the plaintiffs never used the word "excessive force" in their complaint and were less than clear during the proceedings about exactly what theories they were advancing, they had clearly argued that they were subject to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and have alleged facts that support a claim for excessive force. Hamilton v. Kindred. #16-40611, 845 F.3d 659 (5th Cir. 2017).
     An assistant principal's decision to strip search a 12-year-old 7th grade student may have been reasonable at its inception because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the search would have turned up evidence that the student was violating marijuana drug laws. But he was not entitled to qualified immunity for the manner in which he carried out the search. By forcing the minor student to strip naked in front of his peers, the assistant principal exposed the student to an unnecessary level of intrusion that rendered the search excessive in scope and, therefore, unconstitutional, under the Fourth Amendment, because the assistant principal's decision to have the student fully remove all of his underclothing in front of his peers bore "no rational relationship" to the purpose of the search. D. H. v. McDowell, #14-14960, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13810, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 581 (11th Cir.).
     After a woman reported that her former boyfriend had attacked and threatened to shoot her, police found the ex-boyfriend in a car they stopped nearby and handcuffed him, putting him in their squad car. The driver consented to a vehicle search that revealed a gun in a shopping bag, which the ex-boyfriend admitted was his. Sentenced to prison for being a felon in possession of a firearms, he sued over the stop of the vehicle. A federal appeals court stated that while the search of the vehicle was consensual and the arrest was not unlawful, the stop of the car, which the defendants admitted that they lacked probable cause to stop, was an unreasonable seizure of the plaintiff's person, entitling him to damages. Giddeon v. Flynn, #15-3464, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13735 (7th Cir.).

     Over 20 officers armed with assault rifles responded to a report of two armed black males in a parking lot. When they arrived there, no one fitting the description was present, only a large Samoan family celebrating a little girl's birthday. The family was detained and searched for weapons, and their apartment was then searched without a warrant or consent. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for the seizure of the plaintiffs or the warrantless search of the apartment. Sialoi v. City of San Diego, #14-55387, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9489 (10th Cir.).
     A number of police officers claimed that two other officers violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they complied with a court order to obtain DNA samples from them to exclude them as possible contributors of DNA at a crime scene. The samples were of saliva, obtained by use ol a mouth swab. A federal appeals court ruled that the court order in question satisfied the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, and that no undue intrusion occurred as the use of buccal swabs was brief and minimal, intrusions that involve almost no risk, trauma, or pain. As to a reasonable expectation of privacy, it was reasonable to require officers to produce such samples to to demonstrate that DNA left at a crime scene was not theirs and was not the result of inadvertent contamination of the crime scene by on-duty officers.
Bill v. Brewer, #13-15844, 799 F.3d 1295 (9th Cir. 2015).
     A man claimed a violation of his constitutional rights based on police using physical force to eject him from a city court where he was waiting for his attorney in a public area outside th county clerk's office. A federal appeals court held that the plaintiff's First Amendment claim was properly dismissed because the plaintiff had not alleged that he was engaged in any form of expressive activity at the time or that his removal impaired his access to any judicial records. His Fourth Amendment claim should not have been dismissed for failure to plead seizure, as the use of physical force to restrain him and control his movements so as to eject him, could be either reasonable or unreasonable, even though he was free to go anywhere else he wanted after ejected from the court. Salmon v. Blesser, #14-1993, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16070 (2nd Cir.).
     A deputy sheriff stopped a female motorist for a traffic violation. She smelled of alcohol, had poor balance, failed field sobriety tests, and registered a blood-alcohol concentration of .109--beyond the applicable .08 legal threshold for intoxication on a preliminary breath test. The deputy tried to obtain consent for a urine or blood test to confirm the intoxication as provided by a state statute. The motorist was informed that under a state implied consent statute refusal to take a test was a crime and that she could consult an attorney before making a decision. She waived having an attorney and consented to a urine test, but did not produce a sample within 45 minutes. She was then taken to a medical center, where she agreed to a blood test. The DWI charge was later dismissed and the driver pled guilty to a petty misdemeanor traffic violation. The driver sued, arguing that the county had an unconstitutional policy or custom of conducting warrantless, nonconsensual blood-alcohol tests that violated the Fourth Amendment. A federal appeals court ruled that the driver's consent had made the blood draw constitutional, and that the dilemma of eiher having to consent or face prosecution for failure to do so did not nullify her otherwise uninhibited consent. The deputy only requested a fluid sample after the driver failed a number of field tests, including the preliminary breath test, which gave the deputy probable cause to believe that the driver had been driving while intoxicated. Wall v. Stanek, #14-2878, 794 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2015).
     The City of Chicago Police Department and the Illinois ACLU, without litigation, negotiated a settlement agreement which will result in monitoring how officers in the city conduct street stop and frisks. The ACLU sought the agreement based on concerns that officers were disproportionately targeting minorities for such searches. The monitoring will involve documenting all such searches, not only those which result in an arrest. A jointly named independent consultant, a former U.S. magistrate judge, will issue public reports based on the monitoring twice a year and will recommend changes in policy. Additional training will be conducted, pursuant to the settlement to try to make sure that officers do not use race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation when deciding to stop and frisk, except when those are listed characteristics in a specific suspect description. The complete text of the agreement may be read at the link. Investigatory Stop and Protective Pat Down Settlement Agreement, City of Chicago and Illinois ACLU (August 6, 2015).
     The plaintiffs, who were illegal aliens, sought to pursue Bivens civil rights claims against federal border patrol agents who allegedly illegally stopped and arrested them. A federal appeals court, noting that it had not previously extended Bivens civil rights actions to include claims arising from civil immigration apprehensions and detentions, other than those involving excessive force, declined to do so. It further found that the comprehensive rules and remedies found in immigration statutes and regulations precluded "crafting" an implied damages remedy. Allowing claims for damages in this context, which were likely to be minimal, would be unlikely to provide significant additional deterrence to illegal acts, and the court also noted that there were serious separation of powers issues that would be implicated in trying to do so. De La Paz v. Coy, #13-50768, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7977 (5th Cir.).
    A couple were out walking with their daughter, grandson, and a dog. The man carried a cell phone, holstered on his hip, next to a semiautomatic handgun. a motorcyclist passing by stopped to complain about the visible weapon, and after a heated argument, called 911. The dispatcher stated that the weapon was legal in Ohio with a concealed carry weapon permit. An officer was dispatched, and took possession of the man's weapon. The officer threatened to arrest the man for inducing panic and placed him in handcuffs. After the officer discovered that the man had a carry permit for the weapon, he released him while citing him for failure to disclose personal information, a charge later dropped. The man had produced his driver's license, but told the officer to look up his carry permit. While the trial court rejected First and Second Amendment charges against the officer on summary judgment, it permitted Fourth Amendment and state law claims to go forward. A federal appeals court upheld this result. It noted that the officer had the right to approach the plaintiff and ask him questions, but that Ohio law permitted the man, with his permit, to do exactly what he was doing, openly carry his firearm. The officer had no basis for uncertainty abut the law, and had no evidence that the man was dangerous. All that he saw was that the man was armed, and legally so. There was no basis for reasonable suspicion of inducing panic or that the man needed to be disarmed, and allowing stops in these circumstances would effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protection for legally armed persons. The court noted that "Not only has the State made open carry of a firearm legal, but it also does not require gun owners to produce or even carry their licenses for inquiring officers." While the officer also claimed that the man made a "furtive motion" towards his weapon before being disarmed, that was disputed and was an issue of fact for a jury. A second officer, who did not arrive on the scene until after the plaintiff was already handcuffed and placed in the back of the first officer's car, however, was entitled to qualified immunity, as he had not detained, disarmed, or handcuffed the plaintiff.
Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep't., #14-4050, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7868, 2015 Fed. App. 0092P (6th Cir.).
      An officer approached a car he was parked at night in a rural unlit area. Two men holding shotguns were encountered, and he pointed his service revolver at them. An unlawful seizure claim filed by one of the men failed. The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop him for investigatory purposes when he observed him carrying a shotgun with a second armed man in the area, particularly as the plaintiff failed to immediately comply with the request to place his weapon on the ground. Under the circumstances, the officer was justified in temporarily unholstering his weapon and pointing it at both men while assessing the situation and gaining control. The men outnumbered the officer and he did not know then that they were there for purposes of hunting. Stiegel v. Collins, #14-1631, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 23116 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Under current security procedures imposed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), some passengers cannot pass through some security checkpoints without submitting to a pat-down that includes security personnel touching areas around the groin and breasts to search for concealed metallic and non-metallc weapons. A woman whose job required her to fly frequently, had a metallic joint replacement and was often subjected to such searches. She sued the TSA, claiming that its standard pat-down constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as violating federal disability discrimination law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A federal appeals court rejected both claims. The TSA could conduct pat-downs to search for weapons on passengers who triggered walk-through metal detector alarms just as it did for passengers who declined to pass through advanced imaging technology scanners. The security procedures did not discriminate against persons with metallic joint replacements as the plaintiff could not point to any government benefit, service, program, or facility to which the TSA's screening denied her meaningful access on the basis of a disability. Ruskai v. Pistole, #12-1392, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 24350 (1st Cir.).
     A motorist, having driven to a store's parking lot and exited his car, was ordered to get back into his vehicle and show his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance by an officer who exited a police vehicle that pulled in behind him. He was arrested for refusing to comply, and subsequently pled guilty to driving on a suspended or revoked license. He argued in a lawsuit that the officer had no basis for ordering him to reenter his vehicle and that the order to do so constituted an unreasonable seizure. The federal appeals court rejected a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was barred by the conviction because a judgment in the plaintiff's favor would imply that the conviction was invalid. Because the plaintiff had pled guilty, a finding of illegal seizure would have no relevance to the validity of the plea and subsequent sentence. Rollins v. Willett, #14-2115, 770 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2014). 
     A woman claimed that a deputy sheriff subjected her to an unreasonable seizure and used excessive force at a courthouse security checkpoint. Overturning summary judgment on her federal civil rights claims, the appeals court ruled that the trial judge erroneously applied a substantive due process/shocks the conscience legal standard rather than the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard. The defendant deputy was, however, entitled to official immunity on Georgia state law claims. West v. Davis, #13-14805, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17319 (11th Cir.).
     Two officers were not entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment on Fourth Amendment claims arising out of a doctor's forcible non-consensual removal of a plastic baggie containing cocaine base from the plaintiff's rectum. The doctor's actions could be attributed to the officers if the jury determined as alleged, that the officers gave false information to the hospital staff and doctor about the plaintiff's medical condition and encouraged as well as actively physically assisted the doctor in carrying out the removal. A jury could find that the doctor's actions violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. Fourteenth Amendment due process claims were rejected as no prior case law showed a Fourteenth Amendment violation under similar circumstances. George v. Edholm, #11-57075, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9798 (9th Cir.).
   While investigating a suspected misdemeanor violation of a domestic violence injunction, a detective and a sergeant monitored, intercepted, and listened to a privileged conversation between the suspect and his attorney in an interview room in the county sheriff's office, acting without a warrant or any notice. They also seized, from the attorney, without a warrant, a statement written by the suspect. The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that the warrantless interception of the private privileged conversation violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court also found that the surreptitious electronic eavesdropping and recording violated the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., which was not an issue on appeal. The defendants failed to properly assert in the trial court their argument that the warrantless seizure of the suspect's written statement from his attorney was permitted by exigent circumstances. Gennusa v. Canova, #12-13871, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6410, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1195 (11th Cir.).
      Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Nevada claiming that a Georgia police officer who searched them at a Georgia airport while working as a deputized DEA agent had seized a large quantity of cash from them. After they returned to their Nevada residence, he allegedly drafted a false probable cause affidavit in support of the forfeiture of the funds. No forfeiture action was ultimately taken. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Nevada federal trial court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the Georgia police officer, because he lacked "minimal contacts" with Nevada. Walden v. Fiore, #12-574, 188 L. Ed. 2d 12, 2014 U.S. Lexis 1635.
     Police officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of police officers by searching them after the residents of a home that they were searching accused him of stealing $1,750 in cash during the search. A reasonable person in the plaintiffs' position would not have feared arrest or detention if they had refused the defendants' request to search them for the money. The fact that one of the plaintiffs agreed to the search only because he was taking a nonprescription supplement to clean his colon and therefore had an immediate need to use the restroom and couldn't do so until he had been searched did not turn what occurred into a "seizure." Carter v. City of Milwaukee, #13-2187, (7th Cir.).
     Agents from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and FBI were entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit brought over airport screening. The plaintiff did not show that any individual federal agent violated his clearly established rights under either the Fourth or First Amendments. He was allegedly detained, interrogated, handcuffed, and then jailed for a total of approximately five hours because he was carrying a deck of Arabic-English flashcards and a book critical of American interventionism. While the flashcards had numerous innocuous words, they also contained "bomb," "terrorist," "explosion," "attack," "battle," "kill," "to target," "to kidnap," and "to wound." George v. Rehiel, #11-4292, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 25604 (3rd Cir.).
     A New York City Police Department order requires that any officer who fires his weapon and such firing results in injury or death to be administered a breathalyzer. Rejecting a Fourth Amendment challenge to the order, a federal appeals court found that the order was aimed at both personnel management and bolstering public confidence in the police, and thereby fell within the definition of "special needs" when analyzing the reasonableness of the search under the Fourth Amendment. These concerns were different from ordinary law enforcement concerns, so the warrant and probable cause requirements applicable to law enforcement searches did not apply. These warrantless suspicionless tests were reasonable as a matter of law since the special needs involved outweighed any privacy interests of the officers concerning whether they had consumed alcohol. Lynch v. City of New York, #12-3089, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 23074 (2nd Cir.).
     There was ample evidence to support a jury's verdict in favor of four officers involved in the search and seizure and arrest of the plaintiff on drug charges. The officers observed what appeared to be open drug sales of crack cocaine in a lot involving four men and a juvenile with passersby attracted into a lot by yells of "rocks, rocks," referring to cocaine. There was probable cause for the search, seizure and arrest, so there could be no liability despite the fact that the plaintiff was later acquitted. The plaintiff's argument that one officer arranged to have three others join him in fabricating a drug bust to bolster the possibility that he would be assigned to the narcotics squad was characterized as "far fetched." Morrow v. May, #12-1329, 735 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2013).
     A federal judge ruled that the stop-and-frisk tactics employed by the New York City Police Department violated the constitutional rights of many thousands of people detained. The court found that police routinely systematically stopped innocent people on the street without an objective reason to suspect them of any wrongdoing. Predominately young minority males were stopped and frisked for weapons or drugs before being let go. The searches increased over the years, the courtfound, even as crime declined, and violated the Fourth Amendment.
The city acted with deliberate indifference to the widespread practice and violated the equal protection rights of minorities. The court also found that the practices that led to unconstitutional stops and frisks were sufficiently widespread that they had the force of law. Floyd v. City of New York, #08-1034, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113271 (S.D.N.Y). In an order concerning remedies, the judge appointed a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms of the stop-and-frisk practices, and mandated the officers wear body cameras in selected precincts, among other measures. Floyd v. City of New York, #08-1034, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113205 (S.D.N.Y).
     A man was arrested for a suspected drug offense based on information from a confidential informant. At the police station, he was subjected to a visual body cavity search, which uncovered drugs. The man's conviction was overturned, with the search ruled illegal. The defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest and unlawful search claims, since there had been arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff and a reasonable officer at the time of the arrest would not have known that conducting a suspicionless visual body cavity search of a felony drug arrestee was unlawful. Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, #11-5403, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 17943 (2nd Cir.).
     A bankruptcy court ordered a debtor's home vacated and federal Marshals were authorized to remove the debtor's son who was living there from the residence. He was patted down, removed, the house was searched, and he was not allowed to reenter to claim his belongings. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the son's lawsuit against federal employees as he did not properly plead his case for violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Claims against a city and its police officers in their official capacities were properly dismissed. Even if the bankruptcy court's order had been invalid, the plaintiff had not shown any direct link between a city policy or custom and the alleged violation of his rights. Alexander v. Hedback, #12-2834, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 13302 (8th Cir.).
     Officers who make a lawful arrest for a serious offense may take and analyze a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA. Like fingerprinting and photographing, it is a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Maryland v. King, #12-207, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4165.
     The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled by 5-4 that officers, under ordinary circumstances, must attempt to get a search warrant before compelling drunk driving suspects to submit to a blood test. "[T]he natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant." A warrantless blood test might be justified by exigency in some cases under the totality of the circumstances, determined on a case by case basis. Missouri v. McNeely, #11-1425, 133 S. Ct. 1552.
     A number of arrestees challenged the reliance by the police department on "dog-scent lineups" to arrest, charge and hold them. Inculpatory evidence obtained from dog-scent lineups, a federal appeals court held, could raise a strong suspicion of guilt, but was "merely supportive." When used alone, or as primary evidence, it was insufficient to support a conviction. The plaintiffs failed to establish municipal liability, however, and a number of individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Curtis v. Anthony, #11-20906, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4654 (5th Cir.).
     A police officer was sued on a motorist's claim that he violated her Fourth Amendment rights by reading a piece of her mail while he searched her car with her consent following a traffic stop. It violates a person's rights when an officer reads their private papers, the text of which was not in plain view, while conducting a search based on generalized consent to search an area in which the letter was found. The officer was entitled to qualified immunity, however, as this right was not yet clearly established at the time. Winfield v. Trottier, #11-4404, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4635 (2nd Cir.).
     A federal judge has ruled that a portion of the New York City Police Department's "stop and frisk" practices is unconstitutional, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The case concerns stops made by officers on suspicion of trespass outside of privately owned buildings, often done with the permission of or at the request of the buildings' private landlords. African-American and Latino residents claimed that the stops were made without reasonable suspicion. Issuing a preliminary injunction against the practice, the court found that officers frequently made such stops simply because someone was seen entering and exiting or simply exiting a building designated as a "Clean Halls" or "Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP)" building, a program that allows officers to patrol inside and around thousands of private residential buildings throughout the city. There was evidence that officers thought that the mere fact that a building was enrolled in the program made it legal for them to approach and question or stop anyone in such a building even without a reason for doing so. The court also pointed to department training materials "that continue to misstate the minimal constitutional standards for making stops." The court found that, as a result of these frequent stops, residents of the area feared being stopped as they approached or left their own homes or those of their friends and families. The court ordered the city to develop and adopt a formal written policy specifying the limited circumstances in which it is legally permissible under the Fourth Amendment to stop a person outside one of the buildings on suspicion of trespass, and to revise its training material and programs on the subject. Ligon v. City of New York, #12 Civ, 2274, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2871 (S.D.N.Y.).
     A husband and wife, on their own behalf and on behalf of their child, sued to challenge the use of advanced imaging scanners and purportedly invasive pat-down searches at airport screening. The trial court properly dismissed the lawsuit since the Transportation Security Administration's standard operating procedures for airport screenings constituted an order that 49 U.S.C. Sec. 46110 states can only be initially challenged in a federal appeals court. This did not deprive the plaintiffs of meaningful judicial review or due process. Other arguments about the constitutionality of the searches would only have been reached if the plaintiffs first sought review in a federal appeals court. Blitz v. Napolitano, #11-2283, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24664 (4th Cir.).
     A Tennessee state law allows holders of gun permits to carry their handguns in a state-owned or operated public place, provided that the barrel of the gun is less than a foot long. Relying on that law, the holder of a permit slung his AK-47 pistol, which had an 11-1/2 inch barrel across his chest, which bore camouflage, along with a 30-round clip, and went for a walk through a state park. After this alarmed a number of other people, a ranger in the park stopped him, ordered him to get on the ground, and held him until a determination could be made that his weapon was legal. Doing so did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as it was simply a legitimate investigatory stop. The court also rejected an argument that the ranger's actions violated the Second Amendment, since no court "has held that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to bear arms in state parks." Embody v. Ward, #11-5963, 695 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012).
     A man returning home to the U.S. after a trip abroad had his laptop computer seized by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. The hard drive of the equipment failed while being detained, which destroyed the plaintiff's business software and other information on the machine. He filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government seeking damages for an unlawful Fifth Amendment taking as well as for breach of contract. A federal appeals court dismissed both claims, finding no plausible mutual intent to contract and that there was no voluntary delivery of his property, as required for a bailment contract. The seizure of the computer also did not amount to a taking of it for a public purpose giving rise to a right to compensation. Kam-Almaz v. U.S., #2011-5059, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 12581 (Fed. Cir.).
     A man active in advocating the right to carry concealed firearms in public openly carried a holstered handgun into retail stores on two occasions. Both times, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and had his gun confiscated. He was not prosecuted and each time his gun was eventually returned. He claimed that his conduct was not disorderly and was protected under the federal and state constitutions. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest claims. The officers could not have anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court would subsequently issue Second Amendment opinions raising an issue about whether his conduct was lawful and were not required to balance alleged firearms rights under the Wisconsin state constitution against the disorderly conduct law. The officers also were not liable for violating the plaintiff's rights under the federal Privacy Act by requesting his Social Security number during one of the incidents, since it was not clearly established that they had to inform him whether the disclosure of his Social Security number was voluntary or mandatory, and they had not denied him any "right, benefit, or privilege" based on his refusal to disclose the number. The court also rejected claims for unlawful seizure of his property, the handgun. Gonzalez v. Village of West Milwaukee, #10-2356, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1965 (7th Cir.).
     A woman brought five children sleeping at her house (her minor daughter and four minor grandchildren) to the hospital. She had found blood on the underwear of her daughter and learned that the boys and girls had slept together rather than in gender-separate rooms. After she refused to consent to the sedation of the girl for purposes of a sexual assault examination, she attempted to leave with the children. Medical staff members and police imposed a 72-hour hold on the girl and the boy suspected of assaulting her, and ultimately examinations of both children were carried out. Police and medical personnel were entitled to summary judgment on civil rights claims brought against them. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment rights of the woman or the children under the circumstances. Doe v. Tsai, #10-2655, 648 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2011).
     Police officers were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for conducting searches of the members of a high school soccer team following a heated match with another school. The officers were searching for items of personal property athletes from the opposing school's football team claimed were missing from the locker room. The search was conducted with the apparent consent of the team's coach, although he subsequently claimed that the officers coerced his consent. The appeals court rejected the largely Hispanic plaintiffs' claim that the officers engaged in "racial profiling" in conducting the searches. Lopera v. Town of Coventry, #09-2386, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6757 (1st Cir.).
     A motorist filed suit for malicious prosecution on charges arising during a traffic stop and arrest for several traffic infractions, civil infractions, and drunk driving. All charges were dismissed when his blood alcohol level was determined to be 0.00%. The federal appeals court held that summary judgment was properly granted on malicious prosecution claims related to four of the seven tickets written, since they were not criminal prosecutions, but civil infractions. The court also upheld summary judgment on an unlawful search claim related to a second blood test conducted, and on claims for municipal liability. Further proceedings were ordered, however, on federal and state malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest, and excessive force claims arising out of the criminal charges. Miller v. Sanilac County, #09-1340, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 11469 (6th Cir.).
     A federal trial court erred in granting summary judgment for police officers in a lawsuit claiming that they lacked probable cause to stop a vehicle for a traffic offense, which led to the seizure of drugs. A state court had previously ruled that one of the officers provided an "equivocal" reason for why he stopped the vehicle, and this officer, in a deposition, admitted that he had not observed the motorist's unlawful tinted window prior to stopping his car. Additionally, the officers failed to provide any reason to support dismissal of claims relating to the allegedly "offensive" manner in which a passenger was searched, including pulling his pants partially down and pulling his underwear away from his body. The court did uphold, however, a determination that state law claims, including false arrest and malicious prosecution, had been waived. Carmichael v. Village of Palatine, #09-1010, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 10378 (7th Cir.).
     A traveler was stopped and searched by customs inspectors at a South Florida airport because she allegedly fit the profile for alimentary canal drug smugglers. She allegedly acted in a nervous manner, carried no luggage, provided inconsistent reasons for her trip, failed to remember her husband's phone number or who bought her plane ticket, and was a pregnant black female traveling alone and returning from a brief stay in a known source country for illegal drugs, Jamaica. She also had notes in another person's handwriting that appeared to provide her with a "cover story." No x-rays were used, because of her pregnancy, and she was instead taken to a hospital for two days, given laxatives, and subjected to a pelvic exam, after which no drugs were found. The customs inspectors were entitled to qualified immunity, and acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment. Because they acted under federal law in performing their official duties, Florida state law claims for assault, battery, and false imprisonment were barred by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, art.VI, cl. 2. Denson v. U.S.A., #05-15572, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15634 (11th Cir.).
     An officer was justified in making an investigatory stop of an attorney in front of a courthouse, which resulted in the seizure of a handgun that the attorney was observed carrying in a holster. The several minute delay that the officer's actions caused was justified by the attempt to verify the validity of the attorney's gun license, and he was then released, and told that he could later retrieve the gun and his gun license from the police department. Schubert v. City of Springfield, #09-1370, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 28251 (1st Cir.).
     A city police department policy mandating that a breathalyzer test be given to every officer who causes injury or death by firing a weapon fell under the "special needs" doctrine of the Fourth Amendment, so that the trial court properly declined to enjoin its enforcement as unconstitutional. Based on the evidence to date in the case, the policy seems to be reasonable, and the fact that crime control was a purpose, but not the primary purpose, of the policy did not alter the result. The court found that "the breathalyzer program qualifies as 'governmental action taken in the public interest,' because it was designed, among other things, to discourage officers from using their firearms while intoxicated—which is plainly a matter of public concern." Lynch v. N.Y., #08-5250, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26980 (2nd Cir.).
     An extensive search of the plaintiffs' persons, their car, and their cell phones, as well as taking of photographs of their bodies went "well beyond" what was justified as an investigatory stop and was not objectively reasonable. Upholding a jury verdict for the plaintiffs on an unreasonable search and seizure claim, the federal appeals court found that the jury was entitled to believe evidence presented that the plaintiffs did not consent to the searches at issue. Carter v. City of Yonkers, #08-0193, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18061 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     A pregnant woman was detained and searched at an airport based on suspicion that she might be smuggling drugs contained internally in her body. A federal appeals court, rejecting claims of unlawful search, ruled that preliminary searches and seizures are "per se reasonable" when occurring at the border due to the government's "long-standing right" to protect its territorial integrity. The defendants, in detaining the plaintiff and transporting her to a hospital for more intensive examination, acted in a reasonable manner. Denson v. U.S., 05-15572, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15634 (11th Cir.).
     The search by school personnel of a13-year-old female student's underwear, seeking prescription strength and over the counter pain medication barred by school rules without advance permission, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the facts presented did not provide reasonable suspicion justifying extending a permissible search of the student's belongings and person to one in which she was made to pull out her underwear. Despite this, school officials were entitled to qualified immunity since there was not, at the time, clearly established law on the issue. "We would not suggest that entitlement to qualified immunity is the guaranteed product of disuniform views of the law in the other federal, or state, courts, and the fact that a single judge, or even a group of judges, disagrees about the contours of a right does not automatically render the law unclear if we have been clear. That said, however, the cases viewing school strip searches differently from the way we see them are numerous enough, with well-reasoned majority and dissenting opinions, to counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law." Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding, #08-479, 2009 U.S. Lexis 4735.
     While a police officer's stop and seizure of a man during a street encounter was lawful, despite the fact that no arrest resulted and no contraband was found, there was a factual issue as to whether the scope of the search was unreasonable. The plaintiff claimed that the officer pulled his undershorts away from his body, both in front and in the back, shined a flashlight on his genitals, and made physical contact with his buttocks. Summary judgment for the officer was therefore properly denied. Ellison v. City of New Rochelle, 2008-05452, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 3913 (A.D. 2nd Dept.).
     An officer ordered a man out of a parked car with parking lights on outside a drug store when he observed him apparently sleeping, and breathing rapidly. The officer patted him down and arrested him for being under the influence of a controlled substance. A federal appeals court found that there was reasonable suspicion to order that man out of the car and investigate the possibility of use of a controlled substance, but that the pat-down search violated the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights in the absence of anything to provide reasonable suspicion of possession of a weapon. Impoundment of the suspect's car after his arrest was justified under the "community caretaking" doctrine. Wrongful arrest and detention claims were rejected. Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, #04-56832, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6394 (9th Cir.).
     Subjecting a female arrestee to lowering her jeans enough to enable a police chief to take a photograph of a tattoo on her abdomen two inches from her hipbone did not constitute a strip search, and the taking of the photo was necessary in order to establish the arrestee's identity. Additionally, the arrestee was not required to disrobe, and the photo was not taken in a public setting. The underage arrestee had given false personal information after open beer cans were seen in the vehicle in which she was riding, and after she failed a sobriety test and was arrested for underage drinking. The chief did not violate the arrestee's Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, #07-3053, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4017 (8th Cir.).
     In a criminal appeal, an intermediate California appeals court finds that police officer did not have a sufficient basis to handcuff a motorist whose truck they stopped in a high gang, high narcotics area, and whose passenger had admitted that she was carrying drugs. The court rejected the argument that an officer's concern about the motorist's height, which was 6'6", and fears for safety in light of the fact that those involved in drugs may carry weapons justified the handcuffing. The court found that the handcuffing was not reasonably necessary for the investigative detention, that the motorist's subsequent consent to a search was coerced, and that drugs subsequently found on the motorist should be suppressed. People v. Stier, #D051505, 168 Cal. App. 4th 21 (4th Dist. 2008).
     A public school's use of "timeouts," and the characteristics of a "timeout room" used to confine a child suffering from severe mental health and emotional problems did not constitute unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment or a violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Couture v. Bd. of Educ. of the Albuquerque Pub. Sch., No. 07-2133, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16648 (10th Cir.).
     Child welfare caseworker who interviewed a brother and sister at a private school as part of a child abuse investigation was not entitled to qualified immunity for examining the children's bodies, including under their clothes, for signs of abuse. Consent from the school's principal for the interviews did not extend to a search of the children's bodies, and their right to be free from unreasonable searches under these circumstances, absent a warrant, probable cause, exigent circumstances, or valid consent, was clearly established. Michael C. v. Gresbach, No. 07-1756, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10805 (7th Cir.).
     While police acted properly in stopping a motorist's vehicle for a traffic violation, and in asking her to exit the vehicle when she could not produce her vehicle registration or proof of insurance, there were questions of genuine fact as to whether they acted in an objectively reasonable manner in acting as though she posed a risk to them or others based on her "argumentative" behavior, and in conducting a pat-down search, even though they never stated that they believed that she was armed. During the traffic stop, the motorist fell, appeared to have a seizure, and died, apparently of a ruptured berry aneurysm. The court rejected a state law wrongful death claim, since there was no evidence that anything the officers did caused the bleeding or the motorist's death. The plaintiff, the motorist's estate, could proceed with a Fourth Amendment claim arising out of the pat-down search. Pinnock v. City of New Haven, No. 3:05cv927, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39008 (D. Conn.).
      The U.S. government has "plenary authority" to control entry into the country through the border, and also had statutory authority to detain and search five U.S. citizens, practicing Muslims with no criminal records, when they were returning from a Canadian Islamic conference. Additionally, intelligence the government had received that persons with known terrorist ties would be attending the conference provided the government with a compelling interest in preventing potential terrorists from entering the county. The searches, which took place at the border were not intrusive enough to violate the Fourth Amendment, and also did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional or statutory rights to religious freedom. Tabbaa v. Chertoff, No. 06-0119, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27258 (2nd Cir.).
     Officers acted reasonably when they approached a pedestrian leaning on a guardrail next to a highway who had a firearm nearby, drew their weapons, and ordered him to move away from his weapon and lay face down on the pavement, after which they frisked him and handcuffed him. The officers carried out this investigatory stop after receiving a call reporting that a man had been on the side of a road pointing a rifle at passing motorists. The officers let him go after questioning him and determining that he had not been engaged in any criminal activity. Campbell v. Stamper, No. 06-6198, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16516 (6th Cir.).
     Police officer was justified in reaching into the pockets of a man who repeatedly attempted to evade a frisk after he emerged from his hotel room with his hands in his pockets. The man appeared to the officer to be on drugs or mentally ill, and had previously refused to leave the hotel room after check-out time. The officer could reasonably believe, under the circumstances, that the suspect's concealed hands represented a safety risk, was justified in reaching into the pockets to determine whether any weapons were present. After the officer found a glass methamphetamine pipe in a pocket, he had probable cause to make an arrest for a drug offense. As there was no violation of the arrestee's constitutional rights, summary judgment in favor of the defendant officer was appropriate. Inouye v. Kemna, No. 06-15474, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21879 (9th Cir.).
     California appeals court rejects state constitutional challenge to "pat down" search policy requiring a search of all persons attending football games at a San Francisco stadium. The policy was adopted at the direction of the National Football League. The court found that those in attendance at the games could not show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy which encompassed not being subjected to such searches, particularly since advance notice of the search policy was provided. Accordingly, by deciding to attend the football games, they gave implied consent to the searches when they purchased their season tickets. Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd., No. A114945, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1186, 153 Cal. App. 4th 396 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.).
     Holders of concealed weapon permits did not have a right to enter a courthouse without submitting to a magnetometer search for firearms. Conducting such searches, which were carried out along with a posted notice that it was a crime to possess a weapon in a court facility did not violate the plaintiffs' rights under Pennsylvania law, and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy barring such searches. Minich v. County of Jefferson, Pennsylvania, No. No. 1750 C.D. 2006, 2007 Pa. Commw. Lexis 119.
     Ferry transportation company's policy of randomly selecting passengers and vehicles for searches of their carry-on baggage or trunks, adopted in response to the Maritime Transportation Security Act, 46 U.S.C. Secs. 70101-70119, did not violate the Fourth Amendment under the "special needs" doctrine. The searches conducted were not overly intrusive and there was a special need to prevent terrorist attacks on large vessels involved in mass transportation which were found by the Coast Guard to be at an elevated risk of attack. Cassidy v. Chertoff, No. 05-1835, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 29388 (2nd Cir.). [N/R]
     Library user accused of stealing computer equipment failed to show that his consent to search his bag was invalid, based on a police officer's alleged failure to inform him of his right to refuse to give consent. The plaintiff had no right to any such notification, and the evidence showed that his consent was voluntary. Only v. Cyr, No. 06-1086, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27410 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court upholds a judgment for a plaintiff who claimed that police officers violated his rights by ordering a warrantless blood test for an alleged misdemeanor DUI offense without his consent or exigent circumstances. The officers themselves agreed that their actions violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and a federal appeals court rejected their claim that the constitutional right violated was not "clearly established," entitling them to qualified immunity from liability. Jury awarded motorist $90,000 in compensatory damages and a total of $400,000 in punitive damages against the two defendant officers. Marshall v. Columbia Lea Reg'l Hosp., No. 05-2173, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 389 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
     Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent was entitled to qualified immunity for forcibly seizing a small recording tape while searching a residence. The woman from whom he seized it was present and stated that she was closely related to the occupants of the house, and placed the tape in her mouth to prevent him from obtaining it after telling him that she did not want the police to hear it. While the presence of the tape, by itself, might not be suspicious, the woman's actions and statements created a suspicion that it contained evidence of crime justifying its seizure. Cooper v. Bonaventura, No. 7:06CV00053, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5126 (W.D. Va.). [N/R]
       Affidavit for warrant for the seizure of a suspect's DNA in an investigation seeking a serial killer and rapist was not supported by probable cause. Anonymous tips which were not corroborated were insufficient to provide probable cause, as were a 20-year-old burglary conviction and the fact that the suspect was unemployed. Other information allegedly relied on by the detective who submitted the affidavit to the judge, such as an FBI profile of the man sought, was irrelevant, since it was not provided to the judge. Kohler v. Englade, No. 05-30541, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28841 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
     Based on an individual's unwashed appearance and his "evasiveness," officers were justified in making an investigatory stop of a man who appeared outside a courthouse hours before it opened, and in making a protective search of both his person and briefcase to make sure he did not possess weapons. Cady v. Sheahan, No. 04-3518, 467 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court approves New York police department's anti-terrorist suspicionless, random searches of subway passengers' baggage and containers. MacWade v. Kelly, No. 05-6754-cv, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20587 (2nd Cir.). [2006 LR Sep]
     A federal agency's use of its mandatory random drug testing of its criminal investigators to gather evidence given to a federal prosecutor for the primary purpose of deciding whether to initiate criminal proceedings was a violation of the employee's Fourth Amendment rights, but agency officials were entitled to qualified immunity from liability because the law on the issue was not clearly established at the time of the tests in early 2000. Freeman v. Fallin, No. 02-0386, 422 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2006). [N/R]
     Police officer had justification for his protective pat-down search of a stopped motorist. He could reasonably suspect that the man was armed and dangerous when a computer search for his records indicated that he was designated as someone to be considered dangerous, he could not produce registration for the vehicle, and he said that the car belonged to an individual the officer recognized as a known or suspected drug trafficker. Officer was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, and that qualified immunity was not barred by a state appeals court decision overturning the motorist's conviction for possession of crack cocaine based on a ruling that the pat-down search was illegal, since that court did not discuss the issue of qualified immunity, and the officer was not a party to that appeal, and therefore did not have an opportunity in the state court to litigate the issue. Coleman v. Rieck, No. 04-1895, 154 Fed. Appx. 546 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Suspect questioned, and searched on the premises of his employer, an auto manufacturer, during an auto vandalism investigation, voluntarily consented to answer questions and to be searched by sheriff's deputy, so that he could not pursue a federal civil rights claim for these actions. Despite his argument that he did not feel free to leave and that the deputy read him his Miranda rights, the court found that there was no "objective coercion" in the incident. Aquino v. Honda of America, Inc., No. 04-4274, 158 Fed. Appx. 667 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     California motorist arrested for DUI failed to show that officers violated either his federal or state rights by using force to obtain a blood sample for testing. Ritschel v. City of Fountain Valley, No. G034264 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 275 (Cal. 4th App. Dist.). [2006 LR Apr]
     Federal government's civilian airline passenger identification policy does not violate passengers' constitutional rights in requiring them to present identification or submit to screening searches or be denied the ability to board airline flights. No violation is found of the constitutional right to travel, the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the First Amendment, or due process. Gilmore v. Gonzales, No. 04-15736, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1856 (9th Cir.). [2006 LR Mar]
     Police officer's initial investigatory stop of suspect and detention of him for one hour near his house was not shown to be unreasonable. The plaintiff failed to allege the reason for the initial detention or an explanation why the one-hour delay was unreasonable. The evidence available, which included that he was a known methamphetamine user and dealer, that he had been stopped many times before, and that the officers smelled anhydrous ammonia (a key ingredient in manufacturing methamphetamine) coming from his house, "suggests tat the officers did have reasonable suspicion." The officers had asked for permission to search his house, and when this was refused, they placed him in the back of a police car where he sat until the officers obtained a search warrant for the residence. Bowden v. City of Electra, No. 04-10767, 152 Fed. Appx. 363 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Texas state troopers were entitled to qualified immunity for using force against vehicle passenger during traffic stop which resulted in her suffering a broken arm when there was reasonable suspicion to investigate whether she was guilty of public intoxication, and her "aggressive demeanor" and the possibility that she had a weapon justified a pat-down search and handcuffing. Her "further resistance" to the search and handcuffing provided the authorization for the amount of force used. Padilla v. Mason, No. 08-03-00123-CV, 169 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2005). [N/R]
     Information concerning the frequency and location of random searches of N.Y. subway riders' backpacks and containers were protected against discovery by a law enforcement privilege in a lawsuit challenging the city's program to carry out such searches. Macwade v. Kelly, No. 05 CIV.6921, 230 F.R.D. 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer's videotaping of a traffic stop, and of a subsequent search of the motorist's home, did not violate any clearly established right of the motorist, who was stopped for speeding. The officer was also entitled to qualified immunity for asking the driver whether he would be willing to submit to a search of his person, vehicle and home, which revealed marijuana in his pocket. While the drugs were suppressed during a criminal prosecution against the motorist on the basis that the consent given was not voluntary, the federal appeals court ruled that a reasonable officer, under the circumstances, could have believed that the consent was consensual. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered further proceedings, however, as to whether officers engaged in unnecessarily destructive behavior of the motorist's property during the search of his home, and whether they violated his rights when, following the initial search of his home, they returned and allegedly forced their way in again over his wife's objections. Sprague v. Nally, No. 03-489, 882 A.2d 1164 (Vt. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer on patrol could reasonably believe that a disabled adult's initial "retreat" upon seeing the officer justified an investigatory stop, so that he was entitled to qualified immunity in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Lee v. Hefner, No. 04-5445, 136 Fed. Appx. 807 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Federal regulation prohibiting airline passengers from interfering with airline screeners in the performance of their duties was not overbroad, unconstitutionally vague, or in violation of passengers' First Amendment rights. Rendon v. Transp. Sec. Admin., #04-4229, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 20285 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
     City's alleged unwritten policy banning signs and banners on highway overpasses was not unconstitutional. Appeals court rejects constitutional claims of anti-abortion protester barred from displaying her banner there. Faustin v. City of Denver, #04-1025, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19834 (10th Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
     Officers who subjected a female shopper to a body cavity search after she activated a security sensor while leaving a store were entitled to qualified immunity, when the evidence showed that she told a male officer she had no objection to being searched, or to waiting for a female officer to arrive to conduct the search. Even if there was a question as to whether the shopper's consent was actually voluntarily, based on alleged prior statements by store personnel before the officers arrived, the officers acted reasonably and on the basis of information indicating the shopper's consent. McNeal v. Roberts, #04-30660, 129 Fed. Appx. 110 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
    Police officer's alleged pat-down search of protest organization's office manager during execution of a search warrant was unreasonable when carried out without any individualized reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity or possessed weapons. In light of the fact that the warrant was not for weapons or contraband, but rather for protest documents and photographs, it did not justify generalized detention and pat-down of all those present in the absence of such reasonable suspicion. Denver Justice Comm. v. City of Golden, No. 03-1470, 405 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jul]
     Federal trial court declines to set aside jury's verdict for defendant officers in a lawsuit against them by a pedestrian they stopped for investigatory purposes when he was observed carrying a knife in the woods. The issue of whether the stop was reasonable, in light of the fact that it was not unlawful, by itself, to carry an open knife in a public place, was for the jury, rather than an issue of law for the court. Zirlin v. Village of Scarsdale, No. 03CIV.9903, 365 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     Search warrant requiring suspect to submit to DNA testing in connection with a murder investigation was adequately supported by probable cause and therefore did not violate the suspect's constitutional rights. Kohler v. Englade, No. CIV.A.03-857, 365 F. Supp. 2d 751 (M.D. La. 2005). [N/R]
     Strip searches of more than twenty male and female students by schoolteachers, seeking to recover stolen money, carried out, in part, at the direction of a police officer, were unconstitutional, but defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from liability because the law on the issue was not clearly established in May of 2000. Beard v. Whitmore Lake Sch. Dist., No. 03-1904, 402 F.3d 598 (6th Cir.2005). [2005 LR Jun]
     Conducting an investigatory strip search to attempt to discover drugs on persons already arrested for a different offense violated the arrestees' civil rights, federal appeals court rules, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of possession of drugs. Officer was entitled to qualified immunity on carrying out strip searches at all, but not on the clearly unreasonable manner in which he was alleged to have carried them out. Evans v. Stephens, No. 02-1642, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 8071 (11th Cir.). [2005 LR Jun]
     Officers acted reasonably in conducting a protective weapons search that resulted in the discovery of a gun. The officers, while questioning the suspect on reports that he had threatened to shoot people, observed an object under his clothing which appeared to be "weapon-like," after he refused to tell them whether he had a weapon, and initiated physical contact with them. Feinthel v. Payne, No. 04-3057, 121 Fed. Appx. 60 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Deputies who allegedly stopped and searched two men because they appeared "nervous" while walking through a "high crime" area at night lacked reasonable suspicion for the search and detention. The subsequent knowledge the deputies obtained that one of the men was a parolee subject to search as a condition of parole and that there was a bench warrant for his arrest did not "retroactively" justify their earlier detention and search, so that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity. Moreno v. Baca, No. 02-55627, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 3739 (9th Cir.). [2005 LR Apr]
     Elementary school's detention and questioning of ten-year-old student after her classmates claimed that she had brought a handgun to school, and the subsequent involvement of police officers in continuing to detain and question her, and searching the school grounds for the gun, did not violate the constitutional rights of either the student, or her mother, who was not notified of the detention or questioning until it was over. Wofford v. Evans, No. 03-2209, 390 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Mar]
     City's policy requiring everyone participating in a protest demonstration to submit to a metal detector search violated both the First and Fourth Amendment. Bourgeois v. Peters, #02-16886, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 21487 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
     Officers had sufficient reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop of a restaurant patron when restaurant personnel told them that customers had overheard him discussing bank robberies with his companions and that he appeared to be a person identified as a wanted bank robber on a television program. Eisnnicher v. Bob Evans Farms Restaurants, No. 2:02-CV-1020, 310 F. Supp. 2d 936 (S.D. Ohio 2004). [N/R]
     Former Massachusetts Commissioner of Public Safety was not liable, on the basis of his role as supervisor, for state trooper's allegedly unlawful strip search of and lewd comments to female motorist during vehicle stop. Commissioner's prior discipline of trooper following investigation of four prior incidents, which included a six-month suspension without pay, could not be said to show deliberate indifference to the rights of female motorists. Clancy v. McCabe, 805 N.E.2d 484 (Mass. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
     The alleged "manipulation" of supposedly "random" drug testing procedures in order to gather evidence of alleged drug use by particular federal employees for use in criminally prosecuting them, if true, would violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, so that agency officials were not entitled to qualified immunity from unreasonable search and seizure claim. Freeman v. Fallin, 310 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2004). [N/R]
     Delaware police officer was privileged, under state law, to pat down a passenger approached and questioned as he waited for a bus, under the terms of a statute allowing officers to search for dangerous weapons any person detained for questioning if officer possesses reasonable grounds for the belief that he is in danger if the person possesses a deadly weapon. Atamian v. Hauk, 842 A.2d 654 (Del. Super. Ct. 2003). [N/R]
     Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for making investigatory stop of woman even if based merely on suspicion of possession of gun, which is not necessarily a crime, when investigatory stop and search occurred prior to U.S. Supreme Court decision clearly establishing the law on the issue. He was not, however, entitled to qualified immunity on the manner in which the stop was carried out, using a "sensory overload" technique designed to frighten and disorient the person. Brown v. City of Milwaukee, #02-C-0178, 288 F. Supp. 2d 962 (E.D. Wis. 2003). [2004 LR Apr]
     Reasonably competent police officers could have disagreed as to whether probable cause was required to search a student suspected of drug possession when the search was conducted by school officials, so that an officer who suggested that the principal search the student in a school office was entitled to qualified immunity from the student's lawsuit claiming that he was unlawfully detained and searched. Doyle v. Rondout Valley Central School District, 770 N.Y.S.2d 480 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
     Strip searches of patrons during execution of search warrant for drug transactions at nightclub were unlawful when carried out without individualized reasonable suspicion of possession of drugs or probable cause, and sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting the searches. Federal appeals court upholds award of $100 in nominal damages and $15,000 in punitive damages for each plaintiff. Williams v. Kaufman County, No. 02-10500, 352 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
     City ordinance which allowed police officers to subject persons under 21 years of age to a warrantless breath test for alcohol use upon reasonable suspicion was unconstitutional and not justified by a "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement or exigent circumstances. Spencer v. City of Bay City, 292 F. Supp. 2d 932 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
     Federal trial court erred in dismissing convicted plaintiff's federal civil rights lawsuit asserting claims for alleged unreasonable searches and seizures prior to, during, and subsequent to his arrest. A finding that the arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights were violated did not necessarily imply the invalidity of the convictions. Hughes v. Lott, #02-11508, 350 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
     Several African-American women subjected to pat-down and strip searches by airport security officers satisfied the requirements for showing discriminatory purpose and effect by presenting evidence of officers' false statements in their incident logs (such as falsely stating that a canine had alerted to the presence of drugs) and that the searching officers conducted intrusive searches on more than twice (and as high as three times) as many African-American women as white women. Anderson v. Cornejo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that they violated the rights of spectators at a basketball tournament by conducting a "wholesale, invasive search" of a large number of people present without individualized suspicion that they possessed weapons, since the need for individualized suspicion before a search for weapons was clearly established. Williams v. Brown, 269 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court grants judgment as a matter of law to African-American high school basketball coach arrested by police officer solely for calling him a "son of a bitch." Arrestee's statement did not constitute "fighting words," and were therefore protected by the First Amendment. Officer also did not, prior to the arrest, have reasonable suspicion sufficient to detain the coach for an investigatory stop on the basis of motel clerk's report of his "suspicious" behavior of appearing nervous while drinking coffee and looking at newspapers in motel office. Johnson v. Campbell, No. 02-3580, 332 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
     Two police officers were each properly assessed $10,000 in compensatory and $20,000 in punitive damages, appeals court rules, for unreasonable and "unnecessarily degrading" and prolonged detention of female resident of home who was not a subject of their investigation during the execution of a search warrant. Plaintiff was allegedly kept in handcuffs for several hours, marched barefoot through the rain, and unnecessarily questioned about her citizenship status. Mena v. City of Simi Valley, #01-56673, 332 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
     Neighborhood residents allegedly detained and searched by officers en masse following basketball tournament were properly certified as a class in a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the actions as unlawful and seeking damages. The fact that individual plaintiffs might claim differing amounts of damage did not support the defendants' motion for decertification. Williams v. Brown, 214 F.R.D. 484 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
     Psychiatrists were qualified to testify as expert witnesses as to the psychological impact on juveniles attending a basketball tournament of allegedly unlawful detentions and searches of them by police officers. Since psychiatrists did not need forensic training or board-certification in child psychology to treat juveniles, their lack of these qualifications did not bar them from testifying. Psychiatric team leader who relied on data collected by a team member and did not himself personally examine the civil rights plaintiffs could testify as to his opinion. Williams v. Brown, 244 F. Supp. 2d 965 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
     UPDATE: While officers' investigatory stop of a man standing on his own porch based solely on a tip from an anonymous source violated the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, the officers were still entitled to qualified immunity because the dispatcher had told them that the man could be intoxicated and armed, which the officers could reasonably rely on without knowing the source of the information. The officers acted properly in preventing him from retreating inside the home, which would have interfered with their investigation, and in arresting him once he resisted and bit an officer. Feathers v. Aey, No. 02-3368, 319 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Officers could properly enter an apartment in order to complete an investigatory stop of an individual who fled inside, and did not use excessive force in stopping his relatives from preventing them from removing him from the apartment to complete his questioning. Rivera v. Washington, No. 01-1595, 57 Fed. Appx. 558 (4th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Sweep of high school for drugs with drug sniffing dogs by sheriff's personnel at the request of school authorities, combined with pat-down searches and a strip search of a student in a private room on the basis of individualized suspicion once a package of drugs was found were not unreasonable. Officers also did not use excessive force in allegedly choking a student to prevent him from swallowing a package of marijuana seeds, but their subsequent strip search of him in the school's parking lot was "excessively intrusive." Rudolph v. Lowndes County Board of Education, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (M.D. Ala. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Officers had a reasonable basis for making an investigatory stop of a man reported to be walking "wet and barefoot" through a neighborhood while talking to himself. Information provided by neighborhood residents gave officers grounds to be concerned about his well being, since they could believe that he might be under the influence of drugs, in need of medical assistance, or suffering from mental illness. Jogger's equal protection rights were not violated by the fact that the officers stopped and questioned him while he was barefoot, but did not stop and question other joggers who were wearing shoes. Cady v. Village of McCook, #02-2579, 57 Fed. Appx. 261 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Male officer's alleged cross-sex pat-down searches of female arrestees, even if in violation of police department policies, were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and therefore were not a basis for a constitutional civil rights claim when searches were minimally intrusive and carried out in a routine manner. Searches were adequately contemporaneous with the arrests when they were carried out upon the arrestee's arrival at the police station. Wyatt v. Slagle, 240 F. Supp. 2d 931 (S.D. Iowa 2002). [N/R]
     State social worker violated Fourth Amendment rights in conducting a visual body cavity search of a female minor based on accusations of sexual abuse without demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a court order, getting parental consent, or showing emergency circumstances, but she was entitled to qualified immunity because the violation was not clearly established in July of 1999. Mother of child did consent to investigative home visit and therefore had no individual claim for Fourth Amendment violations. Roe v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, #01-50711, 299 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal officials could not be held liable for alleged violation of civil rights of accused drug smuggler who underwent emergency surgery to remove leaking balloons of heroin from his abdomen. Plaintiff admitted that he was not aware of any direct involvement "whatsoever" by the named federal defendants, but sued them purely in their supervisory capacity. Nwaokocha v. Hagge, #02-0057, 47 Fed. Appx. 55 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Airline passenger gave implied consent to a random search of his bag by security personnel, enforced by a city police officer, by placing the luggage on an x-ray conveyor belt. The random search of the bag for weapons and explosives did not violate the passenger's Fourth Amendment rights. Torbet v. United Airlines, #01-55319, 298 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Children's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when they were subjected to medical examinations for suspected sexual assault pursuant to a search warrant despite their claim that it violated their rights to conduct the search over their objections. The exams were properly conducted by medical personnel and were authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause, so that the search was not unreasonable. Pelster v. Walker, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D. Ore. 2001). [N/R]
     Federal customs agents who strip-searched and x-rayed a female traveler entering the country at an airport, and ordered a pelvic exam after she disapproved of the treatment of the only other African-American passenger on the plane were not entitled to qualified immunity. Initial stop and search was "routine," but subsequent actions were not supported by reasonable suspicion and violated the Fourth Amendment. Brent v. Ashley, No. 99-12169, 247 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Mar]
     A beautician on her way home from a vacation camping trip was awarded $129,750 in damages by a jury for an allegedly "humiliating" strip search conducted at an airport by U.S. Customs agents after a drug dog alerted to her. The plaintiff was required to strip, bend over and spread open her vagina and buttocks as the agents looked for drugs which were not found, and then agreed to be x-rayed at a local hospital. Kaniff v. U.S. No. 99C-3882 (U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill.), reported in The National Law Journal, p. B3 (Sept. 17, 2001). [N/R]
     342:83 Hospital's policy, developed in cooperation with local police and prosecutors, of subjecting some pregnant women patients to drug tests, the positive results of which were turned over to law enforcement to prosecute patients for use of cocaine, resulted in searches which were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment in the absence of patient consent. Ferguson v. City of Charleston, No. 99- 936, 121 S. Ct. 1281 (2001).
     340:62 Officer's alleged penetration of arrestee's vagina with his finger, squeezing of her hips and kneading of her buttocks with his ungloved hand while he searched her in her open nightgown in the street before putting her in the squad car violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights when there was no justification for the search, and she was being arrested for a misdemeanor 2-day old noise ordinance violation. Amaechi v. West, No. 00-1129, 237 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2001).
     338:29 Officer's "deceptive" use of a civilian, allegedly identified as an officer although he was only an unauthorized "ride-a-long", to detain two persons entering a hotel lobby, if true, violated clearly established law, so that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. Polk v. District of Columbia, 121 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2000).
     337:14 Strip search of minor female, not named in search warrant, during search of trailer for marijuana, would not be reasonable absence particularized suspicion that she was concealing drugs on her person; deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Sims v. Forehand, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Ala. 2000).
     329:77 Female motorist who exposed her breasts and nipples outside her vehicle to a female and a male officer in order to show that she was not the suspect wanted in an arrest warrant (who had a tattoo on her breast) could not recover damages from the officers when she herself spontaneously engaged in the exposure and the officers did not order or demand that she expose herself in this manner then and there; officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Nelson v. McMullen, No. 98-6454, 207 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2000).
     330:85 Federal appeals court upholds $245,000 award of compensatory and punitive damages to three 17- year-old boys, two African-American and one white, on claim that two police officers illegally stopped and searched their vehicle and used excessive force, including pulling and squeezing their testicles, during pat-down search, and were motivated by racial bias in carrying out one-hour stop, search and detention; alleged racial bias was a proper basis for punitive damages award. Price v. Kramer, #97-56580, #98-55484, 200 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2000).
     335:174 Police chief was not entitled to qualified immunity for forcing bartender to submit to a frisk search of his person when there was no reasonable objective suspicion that the bartender was dangerous or had committed any crime; chief allegedly knew that bartender only pulled a pistol in self-defense after bar patron threatened to kill him for macing him while ejecting him from the premises. Painter v. Robertson, #98-3340, 185 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 1999).
     328:61 Arrestee stated a claim for unreasonable search when alleging that police officers strip searched him in a public area of a store, addressed him with racial slurs, and taunted him about the size of his penis. Campbell v. Fernandez, 54 F.Supp. 2d 195 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
     {N/R} Federal jury awards $750,000 in damages to male-to-female transsexual placed with male prisoners after her arrest and then strip searched to determine her gender. Schneider v. San Francisco, No. 97-2203, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Calif. April 16, 1999), reported in The Natl. Law Jour., p. B5 (May 3, 1999) and discussed in the AELE Jail & Prisoner Law Bull., #272, p. 126.
     315:36 Grabbing arrestee's arm and turning her body before ordering her to get into police vehicle was not an excessive use of force, even if unnecessary to effect the arrest. Curd v. City Court of Judsonia, Ark., #97-2858, 141 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 1998).
     318:83 U.S. Supreme Court holds that search of a defense attorney, pursuant to a search warrant, at the courthouse where his client was appearing before a grand jury did not violate due process; search of attorney, even if calculated to "annoy" or to prevent consultation with his client did not violate his right to practice his profession. Conn v. Gabbert, #97-1802, 119 S.Ct. 1292 (1999).
     310:158 Officer who conducted pat-down search of man at courthouse after being told that member of judge's staff feared that he had a gun was entitled to qualified immunity; officer had reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify stop and frisk. McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1997).
     303:46 Car driver whose wallet was searched as he stood outside car, uncovering cocaine, awarded $8,500 for illegal search and seizure when pat down search of driver provided no justification for looking inside wallet; federal appeals court rejects officer's argument that cocaine in wallet would have been inevitably discovered if officers conducted search of car after arresting passenger for drug offense, since they then would have found gun in vehicle, arrested driver for possession of weapon, and then performed inventory search of his wallet. Chatman v. Slagle, 107 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 1997).
     {N/R} Man subjected to pat down search when officers suspected him of repeatedly harassing woman and chasing her from her place of employment did not suffer violation of any clearly established right, so officers were entitled to qualified immunity in his federal civil rights lawsuit. Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama, 121 F.3d 1456 (11th Cir. 1997).
     282:91 Police officers' alleged failure to read Miranda warnings to woman they were questioning about alleged theft, without more, did not give rise to federal civil rights claim, federal appeals court rules; further, woman's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when she voluntarily responded to officers' questioning and later voluntarily went to police station for further questioning to attempt to clear matter up Neighbour v. Covert, 68 F.3d 1508 (7th Cir. 1995).
     278:30 Use of profile of probable suspects, including race as a factor, in affidavit for search warrant to seize blood sample from Afro-American male as part of investigation into rape did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law, federal appeals court rules Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370 (4th Cir. 1995). [Cross-references: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity]
     281:79 Breathalyzer testing of high school student for alcohol use was supported by probable cause when there was reliable information concerning a party at which many students drank and odor of alcohol was detected around student Juran v. Independence or Central School District, 898 F.Supp. 728 (D.Ore 1995).
     283:109 Determination, in criminal proceeding, that police officers' search of arrestee was unlawful did not bar officers or city from contesting that issue in later false arrest/malicious prosecution lawsuit brought by arrestee Taveras v. City of New York, 635 N.Y.S.2d 608 (A.D. D 1995). [Cross-references: False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant; Malicious Prosecution]
     265:3 Plaintiffs awarded $250 in damages for warrantless search of two-year-old child also awarded $34,61281 in attorneys' fees and costs despite failure to prevail on some claims; trial court rules that importance of plaintiff's success could not be measured solely by size of damage award Franz v. Lytle, 854 F.Supp. 753 (D.Kan 1994).
     Child's rash did no justify officer's warrantless searches of her body for evidence of sexual molestation,; officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for searches Franz v. Lytle, 997 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1993).
     Officers did not conduct an "unreasonable" search and seizure when they momentarily grabbed a loaded revolver from a parked car while questioning a man in the car who turned out to have a permit to carry the weapon Wray v. Donaca, 820 F.Supp. 1263 (D.Or 1993).
     Extraction of blood and urine by medical personnel from driver who was injured in auto accident did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights; police officer had justification for requesting the extraction of blood and evidence failed to show that he made any request concerning the extraction of urine Lovett v. Boddy, 810 F.Supp. 844 (WD Ken 1993).
     Arrestee had no constitutional right to have his lawyer present or consult with his lawyer prior to consenting to having blood drawn for testing intended to match blood found at the scene of a burglary Woods v. Lemonds, 804 F.Supp. 1106 (E.D. Mo 1992).
     Airport passenger detained as suspected drug courier awarded $90,000 in compensatory and $100,000 in punitive damages; tip which basically made all black males suspect did not provide officer with reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop Morgan v. Woesner, 975 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1992).
     Officers' warrantless visual inspection of two-year-old female child's vaginal area violated clearly established law; officers lacked probable cause to suspect child sexual abuse when neighbors' complaints only concerned unsupervised and unclean condition of child Franz v. Lytle, 791 F.Supp. 827 (D.Kan 1992).
     City's alleged policy of allowing male officers to do patdown searches of females suspected of misdemeanors did not violate female's constitutional rights; even if officer in this case did touch female's breast, thigh and genitals, a single incident of misconduct would not establish municipal liability Martin v. Swift, 781 F.Supp. 1250 (E.D. Mich 1992).
     City liable for $2,500 for police officer's unreasonable use of force to get motorist to give blood sample after he was stopped for DUI; Fourth Amendment standard, rather than due process "shocks the conscience" standard applies Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1991), cert denied, Newport Beach Calif v. Hammer, 60 USLW 3397 (Dec 3, 1991).
     Officer's obtaining of search warrant for suspect's vagina to seek drugs was not so unreasonable as to be a basis for liability Rodriguez v. Furtado, 771 F.Supp. 1245 (D.Mass 1991).
     Under-age reserve officer's misrepresentation of age and attempt to purchase beer from tavern was not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment Winkel v. Reserve Officer of City of Beloit, Kan, 773 F.Supp. 1487 (D.Kan 1991).
     Appeals court finds qualified immunity for officer's obtaining of search warrant for drug suspect's vagina Rodriguez v. Furtado, 950 F.2d 805 (1st Cir. 1991).
     Policy requiring attorney to go through metal detector a second time with his shoes off, while exempting courthouse personnel with employee badges did not violate equal protection; further proceedings ordered on Fourth Amendment claim Klarfeld v. United States, 944 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1991).
     Woman present during execution of search warrant for drugs in residence was denied permission to use bathroom before she was strip searched; officers were entitled to qualified immunity for strip search, based on exigent circumstances Burns v. Loranger, 907 F.2d 233 (1st Cir. 1990).
     Driver's criminal conviction for DUI and ruling in that trial that he voluntarily took breathalyzer test barred civil rights suit for forcible imposition of test Grochowski v. Commonwealth of Va, 741 F.Supp. 1230 (WD Va 1990).
     Border patrol agent's seizures of Hispanic-looking individuals were unreasonable; damages awarded Ramirez v. Webb, 719 F.Supp. 610 (WD Mich, 1989).
     Officers had reasonable cause to conduct strip searches of female arrestees held for misdemeanor possession of marijuana Doe v. Berberich, 704 F.Supp. 269 (DDC 1988).
     Seizure of rifle as evidence of unlawful use of weapon did not lead to liability for violation of "right to bear arms" Rhea v. Umfleet, 680 F.Supp. 322 (E.D. Mo 1988).
     Attorney for narcotics suspect not entitled to injunction against future subpoena or search warrants absent court order Ray v. Vincent, 682 F.Supp. 307 (M.D. La 1988).
     Damage to car following seizure was not a constitutional violation; seizure of gun at time of arrest did not violate "right to bear arms" Bemis v. Kelley, 671 F.Supp. 837 (D. Mass 1987).
     Requiring arrestees to submit to a drug testing and treatment program is a search or seizure Berry v. District of Columbia, 833 F.2d 1031 (DC Cir. 1987).
     Civil rights action challenging search of all entering courthouse dismissed for failure to rely on fourteenth amendment Justice v. Elrod, 832 F.2d 1048 (7th Cir. 1987).
     Officers may not indiscriminately pat down persons at Ku Klux Klan rallies for weapons; no liability for damages found Wilkinson v. Forst, 832 F.2d 1330 (2d Cir. 1987).
     California appeals court allows police to conduct full body searches and open closed containers on persons arrested for being under the influence of alcohol in public People v. Dennis, 172 Cal App. 3d 287 (App. 1985).
     Officer jointly liable with mother for abducting son Shields v. Martin, 706, P.2d 21 (Idaho 1985).
     State ordered to issue driver's license without requiring photograph Quaring v. Peterson, 728 F.2d 1121 (8th Cir. 1984).
     Officer's search of plaintiff for revolver following traffic dispute reasonable; no physical or verbal abuse by officer Lacascio v. Maurice, 447 So.2d 6 (La App. 1984).
     Bullet ordered surgically removed from defendant Ex parte Johnson, 452 So.2d 889 (Ala Cr App. 1984).
     Pedestrian properly ticketed for walking in street, despite that sidewalk was snowy Newman v. Village of Hinsdale, 592 F.Supp. 1307 (N.D.Ill. 1984).
     U.S. Supreme Court rules students can be searched without probable cause Bilbrey By Bilbrey v. Brown, 738 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1984); Garmon v. Foust, 741 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1984).
     Stop and questioning under local ordinance upheld Porta v. Mayor, City of Omaha, Neb, 593 F.Supp. 863 (D. Neb 1984).
     Strip-search of children during search of house violated Fourth Amendment rights Doe v. City of Chicago, 580 F.Supp. 146 (N.D.Ill. 1983).
     Routine warrant less pat-down searches at rock concerts held unconstitutional Jacobsen v. City of Seattle, 658 P.2d 653 (Wash 1983).
     Officials can not remove bullet from suspect for use as evidence Lee v. Winston, 717 F.2d 888 (4th Cir. 1983).
     No liability for recording informant's conversation with plaintiff; possible liability for search of plaintiff's safety deposit boxes allegedly without warrant Watts v. Graves, 720 F.2d 1416 (5th Cir. 1983).

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu