Warrantless taking a DNA sample from an arrestee under state law but 16 days after his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. If it was at the time of booking, it would have been reasonable. Nominal damages awarded. Lewis v. Brazell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130295 (W.D.Ark. September 28, 2015).<\/p>\n
A search of defendant\u2019s person that lawfully occurred during a traffic stop produced pills, and that, in turn, was reason for a search of his car. United States v. Anderson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130033 (W.D.Ky. September 28, 2015),* R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131284 (W.D.Ky. August 5, 2015).*<\/p>\n
\u201cIn considering the \u2018totality of the circumstances\u2019, the Court finds that the primary purpose of the checkpoint is to deter illegal immigration. That [the dog] is trained to detect both concealed humans and illegal drugs does not preclude his presence at the checkpoint nor automatically transform the checkpoint into a general crime control device. The dog sniff is not a search. It involves minimal intrusion and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in hidden contraband.\u201d United States v. Romero-Cubillas, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130358 (D.Ariz. August 10, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Warrantless taking a DNA sample from an arrestee under state law but 16 days after his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. If it was at the time of booking, it would have been reasonable. Nominal damages awarded. Lewis v. Brazell, … Continue reading