Taking and publishing a mugshot after an arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Jamali v. Maricopa County, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150956 (D. Ariz. October 21, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Even if Plaintiff is correct that the County’s seizure of his image and personal information implicate the Fourth Amendment, “[t]o say that the Fourth Amendment applies here is the beginning point, not the end of the analysis.” Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1969, 186 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013). “As the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search [or seizure] is ‘reasonableness.'” Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995). In some circumstances, such as “[w]hen faced with special law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, or the like, the Court has found that certain general, or individual, circumstances may render a warrantless search or seizure reasonable.” Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330, 121 S. Ct. 946, 148 L. Ed. 2d 838 (2001). “Those circumstances diminish the need for a warrant … because an individual is already on notice … that some reasonable police intrusion on his privacy is to be expected.” King, 133 S. Ct. at 1969.<\/p>\n
The County’s seizure and publication of Plaintiff’s image and personal information did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. In King, the Supreme Court held that taking a DNA sample of an arrestee did not violate his constitutional rights. 133 S. Ct. at 1980. The Court explained that taking pictures, fingerprints, and physical measurements, recording the location of scars and body markings, and obtaining other relevant identifying information from an arrestee is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for “the safe-keeping of a prisoner, and to prevent his escape, or to enable [law enforcement] the more readily to retake the prisoner if he should escape.” Id. at 1975 (quoting State ex rel. Bruns v. Clausmier, 154 Ind. 599, 57 N.E. 541, 542 (Ind. 1900)). Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by similar actions in this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading