School strip search for small bomb was reasonable

School strip search after small bomb exploded in hallway and a suspect was ID’ed, whose hands smelled of explosives, was reasonable. Cases involving strip searches for stolen money and small quantities of drugs are distinguishable. Richardson v. Board of Educ. of Jefferson County, Kentucky, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68748 (W.D Ky. September 22, 2006):

Like the searches in issue in Reynolds and Williams, the search in the present case involved a search for an item that posed a threat to health or safety, namely an explosive device. Also like the searches in these cases, the search was conducted by someone of the same sex and was only visible to members of the same sex. Richardson was also of a similar age as the plaintiffs in these cases. Therefore, this Court finds that the measures adopted for the search, a brief visual inspection for concealed explosives or related items, were reasonably related to the objectives of the search. This Court also finds that the search was not excessively intrusive in light of Richardson’s age, the fact that the search was conducted and only visible to other males, and that the search was for an explosive device which posed a threat to the safety to others within the school.

Just because the warrant says that the place to be searched is “the residence of John Doe” does not preclude the officers from seizing evidence of Richard Roe that they find. “The residence of John Doe” is as much an identifier as an address. United States v. Bergman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68724 (W.D. N.Y. September 25, 2006).

The fact a lawful trailer hitch blocked the view of the license plate was still PC for a stop. United States v. Ratcliff, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68910 (E.D. Tenn. September 25, 2006).*

New crime during alleged illegal arrest would not be suppressed. United States v. Mattiex, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68630 (S.D. N.Y. September 21, 2006):

“There is a strong policy reason for holding that a new and distinct crime, even if triggered by an illegal [stop], is a sufficient intervening event to provide independent grounds for arrest.” As recognized by the Bailey court, “[a] contrary rule would virtually immunize a defendant from prosecution for all crimes he might commit that have a sufficient causal connection to the police misconduct.” Furthermore, “[w]hen a defendant commits a new and distinct crime during an unlawful detention, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not bar evidence of the new crime.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.