Civilly committed inmates have only limited Fourth Amendment rights, but, here, strip [not body cavity] searches after visits are reasonable. Pat downs after using the gym are also reasonable. Semler v. Ludeman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122567 (D. Minn. November 23, 2009):<\/p>\n
The Eighth Circuit has held that involuntarily civilly committed persons retain the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, analogous to the right retained by pretrial detainees. Serna v. Goodno<\/a>, 567 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir. 2009) [posted here<\/a>]. Elaborating on the grounds for applying the standard for pretrial detainees set forth in Bell<\/a>, 441 U.S. at 520, the Eighth Circuit noted that pretrial detainees are kept in custody because there is cause to believe they are dangerous; similarly, commitment under Minnesota law as a sexually dangerous person requires a finding of dangerousness. Id.\t<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
Balancing the significant security interests of the institution against the privacy interests of Plaintiffs, see Bell<\/a>, 441 U.S. at 1885, the Court does not find that MSOP’s policy of requiring Plaintiffs to submit to an unclothed visual body cavity search after contact visits is unreasonable. 9 The policy is in place in order to maintain a safe environment, is applied only after patients have a particular type of visit or contact, and similar searches have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit. The Court recommends that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the unclothed visual body cavity searches be dismissed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant as a passenger had standing to challenge the stop, but the stop was with reasonable suspicion. The CI\u2019s tip was specific and corroborated, and he had a good track record. United States v. Owens, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1290 (M.D. Pa. January 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was valid based on overtinting. He validly consented. His prior experience with law enforcement was a factor in considering his consent. United States v. Pena, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122552 (E.D. N.C. December 11, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading