{"id":4417,"date":"2010-12-29T14:51:13","date_gmt":"2010-07-11T08:24:50","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-07-11T08:24:50","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4417","title":{"rendered":"CA8: No carte blanche for random search of prison employees’ cars on the unit parking lot"},"content":{"rendered":"

Random searches of prison employees\u2019 vehicles in prison parking lots because of community custody inmates allegedly having access to cars was not subject to summary judgment for the state in an employee\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim. There are fact disputes on the reasonableness of the search. True v. Nebraska<\/a>, 612 F.3d 676 (8th Cir. 2010):<\/p>\n

The location of a parking lot and the circumstances of inmate access are relevant to the “interests of the correctional institution in maintaining security”; a lot outside the confines of the prison has greater potential to be a source of contraband when prisoners have unsupervised access to it. Randomly searching such a lot may be an efficient means of preventing the smuggling of contraband. Therefore, balancing a prison employee’s privacy interests against “the substantial government interests in the efficient and proper operation of the workplace,” specifically, the interests of the correctional institution in maintaining security, it is reasonable under all the circumstances to search, by “systematic random selection,” employee vehicles in prison parking lots to which inmates have unsupervised access. [McDonell v. Hunter<\/a>, 809 F.2d 1302, 1310 (8th Cir. 1987), an O’Connor<\/a>-like analysis]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Muskogee Creek Nation sued Oklahoma, inter alia, over enforcement by its tax collectors against Nation vehicles transporting cigarettes in the Nation which were stopped and searched. The Fourth Amendment claim is too generalized for injunctive relief and also subsumed within the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the state. Muskogee Creek Nation v. Okla. Tax Comm’n<\/a>, 611 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4417","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4417"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4417\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}