D.S.D.: UA at jail on drug arrest valid as search incident; there was PC

Defendant was arrested for drug offenses, and a jailer told him “he needed ‘to submit to a UA.’ As Jennings was getting the cup for the urine sample out, and without any Miranda advisement, Brown said, ‘My piss is going to melt right through that cup.’ … Brown provided a sample and it tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine and cannabinoids.” The UA was valid as a search incident. United States v. Brown, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58791 (D. S.D. February 15, 2013):

Brown initially claims that the urine sample was taken without his consent and in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The lack of consent and the absence of a search warrant for the sample, he says, requires that the test results be suppressed.

A law enforcement officer, however, may obtain a urine sample from a person, without a search warrant and incident to arrest, even if that person refuses to provide one himself, if there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime could be discovered through an analysis of that sample. Brown was placed under arrest for two drug related offenses before providing a urine sample. And a person of reasonable prudence, knowing what Jennings did at the time, would have believed that evidence of a drug offense could be discovered through an urinalysis of Brown. Hence, there was no need for Jennings to obtain a warrant for Brown’s urine. This being the case, no basis exists to suppress either the sample or the testing conducted on it.

Note: I hate to admit this, but I saw this coming over 30 years ago, and I once publicly wondered why it didn’t happen: If a person is arrested and lawfully in jail, the jail has control over his or her body. (Bell v. Wolfish (1979)) If the jailers can search his clothing (United States v. Edwards (1974)) or possessions (Illinois v. Lafayette (1983)), why is not a urine test of a person in custody reasonable? I’m not saying it should always happen; I’m just observing that precedent strongly supports its reasonableness.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.