CORRUPT FLORIDA COPS DONT CARE ABOUT YOURE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
CORRUPT FLORIDA COPS DONT CARE ABOUT YOURE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS THE ILLEGALY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ARE RECORDING YOURE CELL PHONE ...
By: LIVEFREE ORDIE
Continued here:
CORRUPT FLORIDA COPS DONT CARE ABOUT YOURE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS - Video
Probable Cause And The Fourth Amendment
By: F
Go here to see the original:
Probable Cause And The Fourth Amendment - Video
A panel of appellate judges disagreed Thursday about whether an Arkansas prison inmate was entitled to a hearing on his complaint that a visual body-cavity inspection by prison guards violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Two members of the three-judge panel agreed with U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr.'s decision to dismiss the handwritten, pro-se lawsuit on the grounds that the allegations "failed to rise to a constitutional violation."
But Judge Kermit Bye of Fargo, N.D., disagreed with his fellow panelists at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, writing in a partial dissent that he thinks Marshall should have conducted a "balancing test" to weigh the need for the search against an invasion of inmate Kendrick C. Story's personal rights.
"Despite broad rights of correctional officers to search prisoners, there are limits on when strip searches are appropriate," Bye wrote, citing previous 8th Circuit rulings. In those rulings, the appellate court said district judges may consider less-invasive techniques in deciding whether a strip search was reasonable, found it relevant that a strip search was conducted in a private bathroom, and held that strip searches should be conducted as far from public view as possible without compromising security concerns, in a manner that isn't degrading or humiliating.
In his lawsuit, Story said he was returning to the Williams Correctional Facility from a school at the Pine Bluff unit on April 16, 2013, when officers at the gate told him to remove his clothes, lift his genitals, and bend over and spread his buttocks for a visual body-cavity search. He complained that the search took place in front of other inmates and in view of two security cameras, and that female guards watched through a video feed from cameras in the master control room.
Marshall dismissed the case on July 30, 2013.
U.S. Circuit Judges Steven M. Colloton of Des Moines, Iowa, and Raymond W. Gruender of St. Louis said in their majority ruling affirming the dismissal that the prison guards were entitled to qualified immunity, making it "unnecessary and inefficient" to even consider whether there was a constitutional violation.
"Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments, and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law," the majority opinion said, citing a 2013 ruling.
The majority also said that the U.S. Supreme Court "never has resolved whether convicted inmates retain a Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches while in custody," although it has said it didn't apply to a search of a prison cell because of "the close and continual surveillance of inmates and their cells required to ensure institutional security and internal order."
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, has said inmates retain no rights under the Fourth Amendment regarding visual inspections by guards, but the 8th Circuit has said inmates are entitled to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches of their bodies, the majority opinion noted.
Read more from the original source:
Decision to throw out suit affirmed
In a per curiam opinion this week, Grady v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced recent 4th Amendment decisions in holding that when the government physically occupies private property for the purpose of obtaining information, it engages in a search under the 4th Amendment.
The State of North Carolina subjects certain repeat offenders to a lifetime of satellite-based monitoring (SBM) after they complete their sentences. The plaintiff, Torrey Dale Grady, argued that such a program represents a violation of his 4th Amendment rights under recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions, including a 2012 case called United States v. Jones (installing a GPS tracker on a suspects car represents a search) and a 2013 case called Florida v. Jardines (using a drug-sniffing dog on a suspects porch represents a search).
The Supreme Court agreed with Grady that such monitoring constitutes a search. In light of these decisions, it follows that a state also conducts a search when it attaches a device to a persons body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individuals movements.
In concluding otherwise, the North Carolina Court of Appeals apparently placed decisive weight on the fact that the States monitoring program is civil in nature. See Jones, ___ N. C. App., at ___, 750 S. E. 2d, at 886 (the instant case involves a civil SBM proceeding). It is well settled, however, that the Fourth Amendments protection extends beyond the sphere of criminal investigations, Ontario v. Quon, 560 U. S. 746, 755 (2010), and the governments purpose in collecting information does not control whether the method of collection constitutes a search. A building inspector who enters a home simply to ensure compliance with civil safety regulations has undoubtedly conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
The court also rejected North Carolinas somewhat strange argument that its monitoring program is not meant to collect information:
The satellite-based monitoring program shall use a system that provides all of the following: (1) Time-correlated and continuous tracking of the geographic location of the subject . (2) Reporting of subjects violations of prescriptive and proscriptive schedule or location requirements. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 14208.40(c).
The States program is plainly designed to obtain information. And since it does so by physically intruding on a subjects body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.
The Court did not, however, examine whether the program constitutes an unreasonable, and therefore unconstitutional, search. The case was remanded to a lower court to sort through that issue.
Notwithstanding the reasonability issue, this ruling reinforces a heartening trend in 4th Amendment jurisprudence away from the nebulous reasonable expectation of privacy standard and toward a more concrete common-law trespass standard, at least insofar as searches of private property are concerned.
View post:
Supreme Court Reinforces Jones Conception of 4th Amendment
DO TSA #39;s THREAT-SPOTTING TIPS THREATEN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?: Jake MacAulay
Have you ever thought about who could be a potential threat in an airport? Well, according to the Transportation Security Administration that #39;s pretty much anyone who #39;s breathing. The...
By: TheAmericanView
Link:
DO TSA's THREAT-SPOTTING TIPS THREATEN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?: Jake MacAulay - Video