A grand jury subpoena to display tattoos for photographing is subject to the reasonableness requirement, and here was shown to be reasonable. United States v. Meregildo, 876 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D. N.Y. July 6, 2012), R&R adopted 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115085 (S.D. N.Y. August 10, 2012):<\/p>\n
The Second Circuit has also suggested that displaying one’s body in this manner implicates the Fourth Amendment. In dicta, the Court of Appeals cautioned that “perhaps,… a demand for the display of identifying characteristics such as scars or birthmarks on parts of the body not normally exposed” may be a Fourth Amendment “search.” United States v. Doe, 457 F.2d 895, 898 (2d Cir. 1972). This Court agrees that compelling a person to display his or her arms, legs, and torso is a Fourth Amendment search.<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
A grand jury subpoena is not a warrant and is subject only to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See Okla. Press Publ’g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 208-209 (1946) (holding that the Fourth Amendment requires that disclosures sought by a subpoena be reasonable); see also United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 445 n.8 (1976) (“A subpoena duces tecum issued to obtain records is subject to no more stringent Fourth Amendment requirements than is the ordinary subpoena. A search warrant, in contrast, is issuable only pursuant to prior judicial approval and authorizes Government officers to seize evidence without requiring enforcement through the courts.” (internal citations omitted)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading