Category Archives: Special needs

WI: Checkpoint minutes after an armed robbery was reasonable; only two cars stopped

Officers responding to an armed robbery call were in the vicinity and parked in the street with top lights on along a possible escape route creating de facto checkpoint or roadblock. Because of time of day, there were few cars … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Roadblocks, Special needs | Comments Off

MA: Admin search doctrine or special needs didn’t permit a discretionary suspicionless search of a car on a prison parking lot

The trial court judge properly allowed defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his motor vehicle while it was parked in a parking lot outside a correctional facility, where, at the time a police officer … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Special needs | Comments Off

DE: GPS monitoring of Tier III sex offenders satisfied “special needs” exception

Statute mandating GPS monitoring of all Tier III sex offenders granted parole or probation without reference to their individual risks of recidivism did not violate the Fourth Amendment under Vernonia’s “special needs” exception. Plaintiffs did not have a legitimate privacy … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search, Special needs | Comments Off

CA3: Direction to ptf to remove pants for observation of UA on supervision was reasonable

Plaintiff was in a urine testing program as a condition of state supervision, and, to prevent cheating, the testing officer directed him to remove his pants so direct observation could be done. Plaintiff characterizes this as a strip search. The … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Special needs, Strip search | Comments Off

CA9: It was obvious by signs and longstanding practice that military bases are secure; having to lockup belongings before a consensual interview on the base wasn’t a seizure

Plaintiff was employed by the military, and NCIS had him come to a base for an interview about budgetary matters. The base was secure and everybody entering was subject to search and knew it from the signs. In the interview … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Special needs | Comments Off

NY: NYC DoC recording jail calls was not as agent of DA; no Sixth Amd. violation

The recording of non-attorney jail calls from Rikers Island and turning them over to the DA’s office does not violate the constitution. Defendant was warned by signs, and thus knew, his calls were being recorded. The NYC Department of Corrections … Continue reading

Posted in Special needs | Comments Off

CA8: Linn State Tech College’s student drug testing policy constitutional; special needs proven [Update: rev'd en banc 12/22/16]

Missouri’s Linn State Technical College’s student drug testing policy is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. After the prior appeal, Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315 (8th Cir. 2013), the district court erred in conducting a program-by-program analysis of where the … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Special needs | Comments Off

IA applies special needs doctrine to parole searches for first time

Iowa applies the special needs doctrine to parole searches for the first time. It alluded to something like that in 1970, but the special needs doctrine hadn’t developed then. This parole search was reasonable under Griffin and the special needs … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Probation / Parole search, Special needs | Comments Off

OR: Where defendant was to be booked and released, jail search was unreasonable

Search at jail wasn’t shown to be necessary or inevitable, and state conceded error (decided under state constitution). Defendant likely would have been booked and released. State v. Moulton, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1372 (October 8, 2014).* Defendant’s refusal to … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Special needs, Standing | Comments Off

CA9: “brutal and physically invasive” warrantless rectal search in jail should have been suppressed

In a “brutal and physically invasive” warrantless rectal search in jail, the motion to suppress should have been granted. He was handcuffed, Tased, and surrounded by five officers, and exigent circumstances were lacking. United States v. Fowlkes, 770 F.3d 748 … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Excessive force, Special needs, Strip search | Comments Off