{"id":4333,"date":"2011-01-11T17:43:58","date_gmt":"2010-06-22T09:02:15","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-22T09:02:15","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4333","title":{"rendered":"S.D.N.Y.: Terrorism suspect claiming PTSD from the CIA could not avoid jail strip searches on that ground"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant, accused of conspiring with bin Laden to bomb embassies in 1998 and awaiting trial in Manhattan, is strip searched whenever he goes to court. He claims PTSD flashbacks from the strip search to CIA interrogation techniques. The court rejects his claim because of the weighty interest in jail and courtroom security. United States v. Ghailani<\/a>, S10 98 Crim. 1023 (LAK) (S.D. N.Y. June 14, 2010):<\/p>\n

In light of the above Beard [v. Banks]<\/a> analysis, and even assuming the truth of all of Dr. Porterfield\u2019s testimony, which the Court does not now either accept or reject, the defendant is not entitled to relief. He has not \u201cmet [his] heavy burden of showing that these officials have exaggerated their response to the genuine security considerations that actuated these restrictions and practices.\u201d The challenged prison regulation \u2013 namely, the requirement of visual inspection of defendant\u2019s body cavities as part of a standard visual search performed whenever he travels to or from court \u2013 is justified by the legitimate governmental interest in protecting the safety of prison and court personnel and other inmates. The Court\u2019s intervention in this matter would be inappropriate. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See Law.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Defendant failed to show under Franks that the arrest affidavit had false information in it. It could have been better, however, \u201cSignificantly, during Hyatt\u2019s cross-examination of Farris at the suppression hearing, he failed to ask any questions regarding the veracity of the statements that she made in her affidavit.\u201d There was a private search of defendant\u2019s computer, and the government had nothing to do with it. United States v. Hyatt<\/a>, 383 Fed. Appx. 900 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*<\/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-4333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4333\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}