{"id":5056,"date":"2011-05-28T07:34:15","date_gmt":"2011-01-06T07:05:37","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-01-06T07:05:37","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5056","title":{"rendered":"CA6: Defendant&#8217;s jail strip search would have been valid, so dropping drugs was an abandonment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant dropped drugs in the jail before his strip search. The court considered the validity of the strip search first to see whether the abandonment was caused by an illegal act, and it concluded that the strip search would have been valid. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/11a0002n-06.pdf\">United States v. Warfield<\/a>, 404 Fed. Appx. 994, 2011 FED App. 0002N (6th Cir. 2011)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Here, three facts justified the jail officers&#8217; reasonable suspicion that Warfield possessed drugs: (1) his prior drug conviction; (2) his refusal to submit to a search; and, most importantly, (3) the relayed information regarding Warfield&#8217;s suspected possession of contraband, specifically through the alerting of the drug-detection dog. These considerations created reasonable suspicion that Warfield possessed drugs, and thus provided an adequate reason under Bell for the jail officers&#8217; strip-search of Warfield. Therefore, even assuming Warfield did not abandon the baggie of crack cocaine, the threatened strip-search of Warfield was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and did not violate Warfield&#8217;s right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Plaintiff inmate\u2019s claim about illegal search was partly barred by Heck, but the two year statute of limitations barred it anyway. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca3.uscourts.gov\/opinarch\/103368np.pdf\">Chambers v. Hathaway<\/a>, 406 Fed. Appx. 571 (3d Cir. 2011),* cert. denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3499 (U.S., May 2, 2011).<\/p>\n<p>Forced DNA extraction from a California prison inmate required by statute for identifying information was not a violation of the Fourth or Eighth Amendments. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2011\/01\/04\/09-15236.pdf\">Hamilton v. Brown<\/a>, 630 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Here, DNA testing under the California DNA Act, like the federal law, is limited to the collection of identifying information. Cal. Pen. Code \u00a7 299.5 (limiting use of samples to criminal identification, exclusion of suspects, and identification of missing persons and imposing penalties for misuse). Having been convicted and incarcerated, Hamilton has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the identifying information derived from his DNA. Accordingly, the DNA identification at issue here is no more intrusive than that considered by the court in <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=10817656737387595526&amp;q=379+F.3d+813&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Kincade<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5056\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-5056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5056","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=5056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}