A school official who heard a rumor that minor plaintiff was pregnant and made her give a urine sample for a pregnancy test stated a Fourth Amendment claim. The right was clearly established, so no qualified immunity. Villanueva v. San Marcos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68280 (W.D. Tex. September 7, 2006), relying on Gruenke v. Seip, 225 F.3d 290, 301 (3rd Cir. 2000) (student athlete):<\/p>\n
The Court agrees with that conclusion insofar as it is plain that a pregnancy test administered in a coercive environment such that the student felt compelled to submit to the school official’s wishes would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. A urinalysis test, like the one conducted for drugs in Vernonia, is clearly intrusive because it reveals personal information. See Veronia <\/em>at 658. While there may be extreme circumstances where a school could require a student to take a pregnancy test, an “official cannot . . . require a student to submit to this intrusion merely to satisfy his curiosity.” Gruenke,<\/em> 225 F.3d at 301.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
911 call was basis for police entry into plaintiff’s property because of suspected overdose, and defendants were entitled to SJ. Snowden v. Peacock, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68406 (N.D. Fla. September 22, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Plaintiff cannot bring a Fourth Amendment claim in federal court after state court had already ruled on the issue because of issue preclusion. There is no preference for federal jurisdiction to adjudicate federal constitutional rights. Birkholz v. County of Macomb, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68398 (E.D. Mich. September 12, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading