CA6: “Direct observation” of pretrial urine testing is reasonable method of observation

Defendant sued the company providing pretrial release drug testing for a court in Kentucky. He did not challenge the condition; he conceded it was reasonable. He challenged the method of “direct observation” was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Norris v. Premier Integrity Solutions, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6881, 2011 FED App. 0085P (6th Cir. April 6, 2011).*

Officers could rely on the report from an apartment complex security officer who they knew and had a duty to protect the apartment complex when he saw things and reported them. Defendant’s furtive, evasive, and defiant conduct in relation to the security guard was relevant to the reasonable suspicion calculus. United States v. McHugh, 639 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2011).*

Defendant’s external computer hard drive was searchable at the border. But, defendant also consented. United States v. McAuley, 420 Fed. Appx. 400 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.