SC Const. search and seizure and privacy provision protects abortion rights; Idaho says theirs doesn’t

The state 1971 constitutional amendment recognizing a right to privacy was really enacting what the people always believed about privacy. It provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated . . . .” S.C. Const., art I, § 10. I. The court holds the constitutional right to privacy includes access to an abortion under state law. Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State, 2023 S.C. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 5, 2023) (a 142 page opinion).

There is no implicit right of privacy protecting a right to abortion in Idaho. Planned Parenthood Great NW. v. State, 2023 Ida. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 5, 2023).

This hotel can’t be sued under § 1983 because it wasn’t a state actor for allegedly violating plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his room. Jones v. Embassy Suites, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1910 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 5, 2023).*

Plaintiff’s retaliatory prison strip search claim fails. “Simply put, nothing in the Complaint suggests that the search of Plaintiff was unreasonable or unnecessary. The full circumstances of the search are not alleged in the Complaint. While Plaintiff claims that the search was retaliatory, he does not elaborate on the allegations of retaliation. … He also concedes that the search was conducted as part of a large set of cell security inspections. … It is unclear from the Complaint whether Defendant Gagnon found contraband in Plaintiff’s cell or on his person that would justify the strip search. It additionally is unclear whether Plaintiff’s genitals were viewed, or even whether Plaintiff’s underwear was removed.” Morris v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr. DOC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1927 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2023).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Prison and jail searches, State constitution, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.