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).