KnoxNews.com: Lawsuit filed over OR man's warrantless cavity search by Bob Fowler:

An Oak Ridge man who says he was forced in June 2011 to submit to a digital rectal exam for suspected drugs — and no drugs were found — has filed a lawsuit in Anderson County Circuit Court.

Wesley Antwan Gulley's legal action contends his constitutional rights were violated and he was subjected to false arrest and imprisonment, assault and battery and medical battery.

The lawsuit alleges Gulley was in shackles and reluctantly consented to the exam, but only after Dr. Michael A. LaPaglia ordered an injectable sedative and threatened to use it "in performing the digital rectal exam …"

The defendants used coercion and "undue influence" to force Gulley's consent, and police officers didn't have a warrant, it continues.

No drugs were found, and he was released after having been shackled for the ride to the hospital. It started because of a dog alert on a $20 bill in the car, which everyone in law enforcement should know by now (since it's been public knowledge for over 25 years) that virtually all currency that goes through money counting machines has microscopic traces of cocaine.

I normally don't include lawsuits because so many fail on qualified immunity or the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim. Based on the news article, this one states enough to get to trial. Forced warrantless digital exams are unreasonable even with probable cause, except for a convict in prison or a jail inmate, thanks to Florence.

h/t to a reader

Relying on Edmond, United States v. Yousif, 308 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2002), and United States v. Prokupek, 632 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2011), the Tenth Circuit holds that stopping cars that pulled off at an exit by ruse checkpoint was not based on reasonable suspicion. Pulling off was a factor in RS, but more is required. United States v. Neff, 10-3336 (10th Cir. June 5, 2012):

We agree with the Eighth Circuit that a driver's decision to use a rural highway exit after seeing drug checkpoint signs may serve as a valid, and indeed persuasive, factor in an officer's reasonable suspicion analysis. See, e.g., Carpenter, 462 F.3d at 987; United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 n.1 (10th Cir. 1994) (listing as one valid factor that "the defendants took an exit which was the first exit after a narcotics check lane sign, and an exit that was seldom used"). But standing alone, it is insufficient to justify even a brief investigatory detention of a vehicle. Here, of course, the government points to a number of other factors that the trooper relied on in forming reasonable suspicion, including: (1) Neff's car had a Shawnee County license plate but was driving in Wabaunsee County; (2) the exit was in a rural area without highway services such as restaurants or gas stations; (3) Neff pulled into a private driveway where he did not seem to have any reason to be; (4) Neff had a startled look on his face when he saw the trooper.

. . .

These facts, when taken together, do not fairly suggest that Neff was attempting to evade police. To be sure, an officer is “entitled to make an assessment of the situation in light of his specialized training and familiarity with the customs of the area’s inhabitants.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 276. But even considering the totality of the circumstances, Neff’s conduct conformed to the patterns of everyday travel. ...

Plaintiff was arrested and detained for 224 days for a sexual assault charge that was ultimately dismissed. He had a prosthetic lower leg and had prostate surgery that made it impossible for him to ejaculate, two things not mentioned anywhere in the investigation. “[I]t is not clear that individuals have a constitutional right to a reasonable post-arrest investigation.” Barham v. Town of Greybull Wyo., 483 Fed. Appx. 506 (10th Cir. 2012)*:

We turn next to Plaintiff's argument that his constitutional rights were violated by his 224-day detention on charges that were later dismissed. He contends there were problems with the alleged victims' stories, particularly relating to Plaintiff's inability to ejaculate semen, and he argues a reasonable law enforcement officer would have investigated these problems and attempted to obtain Plaintiff's release earlier. As we stated in Romero, it is not clear that individuals have a constitutional right to a reasonable post-arrest investigation. See Romero, 45 F.3d at 1478. To the extent there is such a right, it must be based on "facts that, at a minimum, demonstrate Defendants acted with deliberate or reckless intent." Id. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the officers' post-arrest investigation was, at most, negligent. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown the officers' conduct during his detention violated any potential constitutional right to a reasonable post-arrest investigation.

Plaintiffs’ strip search claim on arrest without booking permitted on motion to amend; it was not futile. Sorrell v. Inc. Vill. of Lynbrook, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77303 (E.D. N.Y. June 4, 2012).*

There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest for murder for hire by payment of a snowmobile. State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101 (2012).*

In litigation over a 1991 search warrant in 2012, the seizure under the search warrant was somewhat excessive, but it was not reason to suppress the whole search under Andersen. United States v. Persico, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77298 (E.D. N.Y. June 1, 2012).*

A “checkpoint,” without hardly telling us what for, was valid where it snared the defendant, a habitual driving offender with no license. Desposito v. Commonwealth, 726 S.E.2d 355 (Va. App. 2012):

Appellant's challenge to the validity of the checkpoint is limited to two points: (1) the supervisor's direction that the checkpoint should be conducted "during the lunchtime" leaves the officers with unbridled discretion as to the time of operation; and (2) the plan is flawed because while it requires a 30-minute minimum operational duration, the plan does not establish a maximum time, thus allowing the officers at the checkpoint to determine the duration of the operation. These omissions, appellant contends, render the checkpoint constitutionally unsound, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

"As a preliminary matter, checkpoints with the primary objective of enforcing safety requirements are constitutional." Wright v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 263, 268, 663 S.E.2d 108, 111 (2008) (citing Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 658 (1979)); see also Palmer v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 169, 172, 549 S.E.2d 29, 30 (2001) (holding the purpose of a checkpoint was valid when officers stopped vehicles to look for "any violations on the vehicles, such as drivers' license, equipment, [or] inspection").

. . .

The reasonableness of such seizures, which are less intrusive than a traditional arrest, depends "on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50-51 (1979) (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977)). In considering the constitutionality of these seizures on appeal, we must weigh "the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty." Id. at 51.

What is the public interest in stopping everybody to look for a driver's license? Bank robbers, kidnapers [Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 183 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting)], DUIs? Yes. General crime control, no. I just cannot accept that a driver's license checkpoint is constitutional under Edmund or Sitz. And, yes, Prouse was decided in 1979, and its throwaway reference to driver's license checkpoints was wrong then and it's still wrong. If SCOTUS is concerned about "it could happen to us," then they might now agree. To quote "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," "Uh, what country do you think this is?" American highways are not constitution free zones.

Please, somebody, take this up.

Volokh Conspiracy: Police Searching for Bank Robber Stop All Cars at Intersection, Handcuff Drivers, Search Cars by Eugene Volokh:

So reports ABC News:

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.

Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.

“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News….

“Split-second decision”--code word for “we should get at least qualified immunity because of the hard decisions we have to make in the field protecting the public from bad people.” Good point. What about the 15 people handcuffed for up to 90 minutes who did nothing wrong? They had no description, just a place, so everybody in the place gets handcuffed. Good that they caught the right guy, but heavy handed nonetheless.

Davis v. United States: Expanding the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule to Objective Reliance on Binding Appellate Precedent Presents Too Many Threats to Constitutional Protections by Laura E. Collins, 81 Miss. L.J. Supra 163 (2012).

The Fourth Amendment in a World Without Privacy by Paul Ohm, in Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 81, No. 5, p. 1309, 2012. Abstract on SSRN:

This Article explores the relationship between private and public surveillance. Every year, companies spend millions of dollars developing new services that track, store, and share the words, movements, and even the thoughts of their customers. Millions now own sophisticated tracking devices (smart phones) studded with sensors and always connected to the Internet. They have been coaxed to use these devices to access fun and valuable services to share more information, more of the time. Our country is rapidly becoming a surveillance society.

Meanwhile, the police can access the records that the surveillance society produces and stores with few impediments. Current Fourth Amendment doctrine — premised on the reasonable expectation of privacy test and elaborated through principles such as assumption of risk, knowing exposure, and general public use — places far fewer hurdles in front of the police when they use the fruits of somebody else’s surveillance than when they do the surveillance themselves. As the surveillance society expands, the police will learn to rely more on the products of private surveillance, and will shift their time, energy, and money away from traditional self-help policing, becoming passive consumers rather than active producers of surveillance. Private industry is destined to become the unwitting research and development arm of the FBI. If we continue to interpret the Fourth Amendment as we always have, we will find ourselves not only in a surveillance society, but also in a surveillance state.

If we believe that the Fourth Amendment can and should survive the coming reach of private surveillance, it is not enough to prescribe mild tweaks to the third-party doctrine. A more thorough reinvention of the Fourth Amendment is in order. We should rebuild the Fourth Amendment atop a foundation of something other than privacy, and this Article extends the work of other scholars who have convincingly suggested that the Fourth Amendment was originally intended and is better interpreted to ensure not privacy but liberty from undue government power.