Supreme Court to consider whether strip searches must be limited by the constitution

 

No one feels comfortable undergoing a full body scan, pat down, and being asked by TSA to remove layers of clothing during a security check at the airport. Still, we accept this because we understand the probative value of safety such checks bring to air travel.

This Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will be hearing a case coming from New Jersey on a single issue: “whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search of every individual arrested for any minor offense no matter what the circumstances.”  

In this case, two police departments conducted strip searches on everyone who was booked, even if the individual did not actually pose a danger. There was an outstanding warrant for a man’s arrest after the man failed to pay a fine. The man was subject to a strip search and is now arguing that there was no reason to strip search him because his arrest warrant was more akin to civil contempt rather than criminal charges.

Stay tuned -- this case has huge implications on the future of government searches on civilian bodies.

 

Read a thorough analysis here [scotusblog].

i see you driving round town with the girl i love and i'm like GPS you!

My non-law friends hate pretty much all law-related discussions. However, this is one debate that they have been thoroughly interested in.

This November, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for U.S. v. Jones on the Fourth Amendment issues of 1) whether the government’s act of adding a GPS device to a civilian vehicle without a warrant is an unlawful seizure and 2) whether tracking the movements with the GPS is an unlawful search.

In this case, the government had attached a GPS and mapped the car’s movements for a month in order to muster up evidence of a drug ring conspiracy.

The arguments (stripped to the core):

United States (Petitioner): There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s movements in the public nor is there reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of the car.

Jones (Respondent): Installing a GPS was a seizure and tracking movements with the GPS was a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I have no idea how the Court will rule because a) I’m not one of those people who “know” the Justices and their positions on certain issues, b) I’m not that smart, and c) my predictions (about anything) are usually wrong.

For those unfamiliar with the case, I recommend this concise yet informative article.