N.D.Fla.: Monitored bowel movement in prison didn’t violate 4A

In prison, “the visual strip search and the monitored bowel movement did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” McDonald v. Spears, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107383 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2026).

Defendant’s consent to search his cell phone was limited and narrow, and the officer’s exceeding the scope of consent justifies suppression of that part. United States v. Hernandez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106625 (S.D. Tex. May 13, 2026).

The state sought a BAC warrant after a fatal accident when defendant first refused a breath test. He later consented to a breath test. That doesn’t void the warrant. People v. Santa Clara Cty. Superior Court, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 298 (6th Dist. May 14, 2026).*

Immigration arrest warrants don’t need to be signed by judicial officers. Mong C. ex rel. Uphaphon P. v. Mullin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106559 (D. Minn. May 14, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Immigration arrests, Prison and jail searches, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.