Suspicionless searches of corrections employees’ cars on the parking lot was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Some inmates have access to the parking lot in the normal course of the day, and the employees have a reduced expectation of privacy in their cars on a prison parking lot. True v. Nebraska, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17691 (D. Neb. March 4, 2009):<\/p>\n
The Eighth Circuit Court has considered this lowered expectation of privacy and has concluded that “it is not unreasonable to search vehicles that are parked within [a correctional] institution’s confines where they are accessible to inmates.” Id. In this case, both parties confirm that DCS “community custody inmates” have access to the parking lot that DCS periodically searches. True Aff. at P 8; Filing No. 38 at 9. The Eighth Circuit found that “[s]uch searches may be conducted without cause but must be done uniformly or by systematic random selection of employees whose vehicles are to be searched.” McDonell, 809 F.2d at 1309. The record in this case demonstrates that DCS randomizes its searches of vehicles by randomly selecting five parking stalls from a diagram of the parking lot each time it conducts a suspicionless search. Filing No. 39, Ex. 17 at 1.<\/p>\n
Given True’s diminished expectation of privacy and the government’s justification for its search, DCS’s demand that True submit to a suspicionless search of his personal vehicle parked on DCS property did not violate True’s Fourth Amendment rights. As a result, the court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismisses the plaintiff’s first claim for relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Knock and talk led to valid consent. United States v. Gonzalez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17502 (M.D. N.C. March 4, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading