NY3: SW for person doesn’t include body cavity search unless reason for such search was shown

“Even where a search warrant has been previously obtained, it is axiomatic that such ‘warrant exists and is required not simply to permit, but to circumscribe police intrusions’ …. Here, the search warrant that had been previously obtained authorized the search of defendant’s person but did not authorize a manual body cavity search. Notably, the warrant application made no such request. Moreover, although exigent circumstances bypassing the warrant requirement may be shown where ‘the drugs were in imminent danger of being destroyed, disseminated or lost, or that defendant was in medical distress”’ …, no such showing has been made here. We find that the search of defendant was conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment and, thus, that the recovered drugs should have been suppressed.” People v. Chase, 2024 NY Slip Op 01837, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1877 (3d Dept. Apr. 4, 2024).

Short of police harassment, supervised release searches don’t require warrants. Here, defendant doesn’t even allege harassment. United States v. Grant, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60116 (W.D. La. Apr. 1, 2024).*

The search of defendant’s person conducted over his thermal underwear was reasonable and not too intrusive. United States v. Aziz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60398 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Body searches, Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.