VoteKansas.org

Defendant's companion did not have the authority to consent to a search of his van after he gave her the keys for the limited purpose of checking on the dog and locking the van. State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 521 (April 25, 2012), on remand from State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Ore. 179, 263 P.3d 336 (2011):

Under these precepts, the consent issue in this case reduces to the question of whether defendant and Campbell had an understanding that Campbell had common access to and control of the van when she gave Bennett consent to search it. The trial court, relying on a federal case under the Fourth Amendment (United States v. Morales, 861 F2d 396 (3rd Cir 1988)), ruled that Campbell had authority to consent (although, as noted, the court also ruled that that consent was superseded by defendant's refusal). We do not find Morales helpful. The only issue in that case was whether a person who is the driver, but not the lessee, of a rental car, can consent to a search of the entire car, and the court based its decision on the fact that Morales, as the nonlessee driver, had immediate possession of and control over the car: "By giving Morales control over the car, [the actual lessee] conferred on Morales power to consent to a reasonable search of it." Id. at 399. No such delegation of control exists on the facts of this case. The only evidence that Campbell had control of defendant's van was the fact that he had given her the key. However, as we have previously held, mere possession of the key to premises does not necessarily indicate complete access or control. Fuller, 158 Ore. App at 506 (consenting co-occupant had key, but nonetheless lacked authority to consent to search of nightstand).

[Note: No cases on the Oregon court's website since February.]

Oregon’s warrantless eavesdropping requirement to record a CI and his target requires exigency and probable cause. State v. Miskell, 2012 Ore. LEXIS 269 (April 26, 2012),* revg 239 Or. App. 629, 246 P.3d 755 (2010):

Another aspect of the provision's wording supports defendant's contention that the legislature had in mind the well-known constitutional doctrine of exigent circumstances that obviate the need for a warrant. Law enforcement officers who wish to proceed without a court order under ORS 133.726(7)(b) must be able not only to point to "circumstances of such exigency that it would be unreasonable to obtain a court order," but also must have "probable cause to believe that [the person whose communication is to be intercepted] has committed, is engaged in committing or is about to commit" a felony. The phrase "probable cause" inescapably alludes to a specialized legal concept associated with the constitutional prohibition (in both the Oregon and United States constitutions) against unreasonable searches and seizures, and its use in ORS 133.726(7)(b) appears to confirm that the entir provision, including the "exigency" wording, was intended as a reference to the familiar "probable cause plus exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177, 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (warrantless search permitted if police could show probable cause and exigent circumstances).

On remand from Kentucky v. King, the Kentucky Supreme Court finds no exigency and suppresses again. The state failed in its burden to show exigency. King v. Commonwealth, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 45 (April 26, 2012):

This case is before this Court on remand from the United States Supreme Court, Kentucky v. King, __ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011), rev'g King v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 649 (Ky. 2010), to determine whether exigent circumstances existed when police made a warrantless entry into an apartment occupied by Appellant Hollis King. We conclude that the Commonwealth has failed to show circumstances establishing the imminent destruction of evidence. We therefore reverse the original ruling of the circuit court and remand.

. . .

Turning to the question at hand, we conclude that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry. During the suppression hearing, Officer Cobb repeatedly referred to the "possible" destruction of evidence. He stated that he heard people moving inside the apartment, and that this was "the same kind of movements we've heard inside" when other suspects have destroyed evidence. Cobb never articulated the specific sounds he heard which led him to believe that evidence was about to be destroyed.

In fact, the sounds as described at the suppression hearing were indistinguishable from ordinary household sounds, and were consistent with the natural and reasonable result of a knock on the door. Nothing in the record suggests that the sounds officers heard were anything more than the occupants preparing to answer the door.

The police officers' subjective belief that evidence was being (or about to be) destroyed is not supported by the record, and this Court cannot conclude that the belief was objectively reasonable. "[N]o exigency is created simply because there is probable cause to believe that a serious crime has been committed[.]" Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 753 (1984) (citing Payton, 445 U.S. 573). Exigent circumstances do not deal with mere possibilities, and the Commonwealth must show something more than a possibility that evidence is being destroyed to defeat the presumption of an unreasonable search and seizure.

Just because the defendant attempted to elude the police before, there was no exigency to enter a hotel room without a warrant because there was no evidence that the defendant knew the police were tailing him. United States v. Ramirez, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8451 (8th Cir. April 26, 2012):

"We review the district court's findings of historical fact for clear error, but the ultimate determination of whether the facts as found constitute exigent circumstances is reviewed de novo." United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 2003). "The analysis of whether [the exigent circumstance] exception to the warrant requirement has been made out is an objective one 'focusing on what a reasonable, experienced police officer would believe.'" Id. at 1021 (quoting In re Sealed Case 96-3167, 153 F.3d 759, 766, 332 U.S. App. D.C. 84 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). "[T]he police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests." Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1984). When the exigency at issue is destruction of evidence, police officers must demonstrate a sufficient basis for an officer to believe that somebody in the residence (or hotel room, in this case) will imminently destroy evidence. United States v. Clement, 854 F.2d 1116, 1119 (8th Cir. 1988).

. . .

Looking then at the remaining two bases for the district court's analysis, the circumstances relied upon by the district court are not exigent. "The urgency that would justify allowing the police officers, rather than a neutral judicial officer, to draw the reasonable inferences supporting this entry is not present in these facts." United States v. Duchi, 906 F.2d 1278, 1282 (8th Cir. 1990). At the time these officers attempted to enter room 220, they reasonably believed that two of the occupants of room 220 possessed heroin in their shoes, and the officers believed that the men had, possibly, attempted to elude the police either to flee themselves, which seems more tenable, or, more tenuously, to destroy the evidence at some point. That the officers tracked the men also does not impact our analysis. There is no evidence supporting the inference that these men knew the police were tracking them at all, which might lend credence to that line of reasoning as it relates to the imminent destruction of evidence. Also, knowledge that drugs were in the room does not suffice to conclude that destruction was imminent.

Warrantless installation of a GPS tracker on defendant’s vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment under Jones, but it wasn’t the cause of defendant’s stop. He was being followed, and committed a traffic offense that led to his stop, and a drug dog was ultimately called in. State v. Adams, 2012 S.C. App. LEXIS 107 (April 25, 2012):

Here, the tracking device was installed while Adams's vehicle was parked in a public parking garage, and the device was used to monitor the vehicle's movements while it was on public streets and highways. Under Jones, the Department's installation of the device on Adams's vehicle and use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements constituted a "search." Therefore, the Department's failure to obtain a warrant made that search unreasonable and resulted in a violation of Adams's constitutional rights. Nevertheless, we must still determine whether that violation required suppression of the drugs seized from Adams's person. For the reasons below, we find it did not.

. . .

Here, Sergeant Blair had probable cause to stop Adams's vehicle because he witnessed Adams commit two traffic violations. The officers acted reasonably in instructing Adams to step out of the vehicle while they waited for a license and registration report. Sergeant Blair was also permitted to walk his drug dog around the vehicle while waiting for the completion of Adams's license and registration check. The first alert occurred a mere five to six minutes after the traffic stop began, and no evidence in the record indicates the drug sniff extended the duration of the stop. Consequently, the officers' conduct up to that point was within constitutional bounds. Whether the drugs were admissible depends upon whether the resulting pat-down complied with Adams's Fourth Amendment rights.

Applying the “unique” Pennsylvania independence source rule, and pending two years before it was decided, is Commonwealth v. Henderson, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 3074 (April 25, 2010)*:

In the present circumstances, we are unwilling to enforce a "true independence" rule in the absence of police misconduct and on pain of the Commonwealth being forever barred from obtaining non-evanescent evidence connecting Appellant with his crimes. In answer to the specific question presented, we hold that suppression is not required on account of Detective Evans' status as a member of the same police department as Detective Johnson. Rather, in light of the factual circumstances before the Court in both Melendez and Mason, we deem it appropriate to limit the independent police team requirement to situations in which the rule prevents police from exploiting the fruits of their own willful misconduct. Where such malfeasance is not present, we agree with the Superior Court that the Murray standard strikes the appropriate balance between privacy and law enforcement. See Lloyd, 948 A.2d at 881-82. Ultimately, we believe the "twin aims" of Article I, Section 8 — namely, the safeguarding of privacy and enforcement of the probable-cause requirement — may be vindicated best, and most stably, by taking a more conservative approach to the departure this Court has taken from the established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Defendant denied he had a connection to the house at the time of the search, and that indicated that he had no standing. United States v. Sayles, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57596 (S.D. Ind. April 25, 2012).*

Police officers sought a search warrant for defendant’s house to attempt to corroborate an allegation of sexual assault there. They were there to photograph the interior. Once inside, they found marijuana and guns in plain view. They got a second search warrant to seize them, and it was valid. United States v. Bogie, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57831 (D. Vt. April 25, 2012).*

The trial court did not err in crediting defendant’s statement to the officer that he consented and a search warrant was not required. State v. Wright, 2012 Ohio 1809, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1587 (5th Dist. April 23, 2012).*

Recognizing the right of access to search warrant papers by the target of a search and the press, the state sought impoundment of the records for a brief time until indictment, and this was reasonable under the circumstances. [The case also contains a summary of the law on access to materials.] New England Internet Café v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business in Suffolk County, 2012 Mass. LEXIS 343 (April 25, 2012):

In sum, we do not agree with the plaintiffs that the Fourth Amendment requires that the target of government searches be given access to the materials supporting them prior to indictment or that an analysis separate from our recognized "good cause" analysis is required whenever a Fourth Amendment interest is asserted. On the other hand, we do not agree with the Commonwealth that the privacy and property interests protected by the Fourth Amendment's constraint on unreasonable searches are irrelevant to a judge's balancing of the interests of the parties in the circumstances presented here.

With this in mind, we turn to the manner in which the judge balanced the respective interests of the parties before us. After reviewing both the warrant affidavits and the assistant attorney general's affidavit on good cause, the judge concluded that "the contents of the affidavits are unexceptional." As he explained, and we so conclude after our own review of the impounded materials, the affidavits portray a generic gaming experience at a public place of business; they are innocuous and do not expose any secretive investigative techniques or clandestine operations. In light of the judge's findings, and the opportunity he properly extended to the Commonwealth to suggest the redaction of information that it believed was particularly sensitive, the Commonwealth's interest in preserving the secrecy of its ongoing investigation as described in the affidavits, while ordinarily compelling, was considerably diminished. See In re Search Warrants Issued August 29, 1994, 889 F. Supp. 296, 302 (S.D. Ohio 1995) ("redaction of the original affidavit is feasible and would meet the government's concerns regarding any ongoing criminal investigation"). Contrary to the Commonwealth's contention that the judge overlooked critical information pertinent to the good cause analysis, his acknowledgment of potentially sensitive information worthy of redaction reflects an appreciation of the Commonwealth's purported needs, as well as his conclusion that the Commonwealth had failed to demonstrate good cause to shield the documents in their entirety.

On the other side of the scale, the judge properly considered the extent of the materials seized from the plaintiffs, the closure of the plaintiffs' businesses, and the fact that, nearly two and one-half months after the searches had been executed, the plaintiffs had not yet been charged with a crime. There was no abuse of discretion. The judge's order allowing the plaintiffs' emergency motion to modify or terminate the impoundment order is affirmed.

Just because defendant had a state ID card with the address of the place searched doesn’t mean that he had standing. It is a factor, but it isn’t determinative. Here, the USMJ’s conclusion of no standing was supported by the record. United States v. Langford, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57894 (N.D. Ga. April 24, 2012).

Stop of bus at a border checkpoint also involved a stop of a Jeep following the bus. They were suspected to be traveling together, and a few facts were confirmed which drew that reasonable conclusion, and there was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Finley, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57926 (S.D. Tex. April 25, 2012).*

An IP address was associated with accessing child pornography, and it tied to an address. The police investigated the address and linked defendant to it. There was a substantial basis for issuance of the search warrant for the premises by the link of the IP address. United States v. Wunderli, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57964 (E.D. Mo. March 27, 2012).*

Richmond Times Dispatch: Police to end 'wake-up calls' effort by Reed Williams:

One day after a civil liberties group blasted the Richmond Police Department for knocking on doors late at night to tell residents they are at risk of car break-ins, the department said it's ending the practice next week.

Since when has any police group cared what any "civil liberties group" thinks? This is more fundamental a realization.

NYTimes.com: ACLU Sues Over Border Patrol Stops in U.S. Pacific Northwest by Reuters:

The U.S. Border Patrol is unjustifiably stopping people based on their skin color in Washington state's Olympic Peninsula, just across the water from Canada, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a lawsuit filed on Thursday.

Two Latinos and a black man - two of them prison corrections officers - said in the complaint filed in U.S. federal court in Seattle that they were subject to racial profiling. One of the officers was in his uniform when he was stopped, the lawsuit said.

Update: American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 79 v. Scott, 11-civ-21976-UU (S.D. Fla. April 26, 2012):

To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler, 520 U.S. at 313. To warrant an exception from the main rule, the government must show that it has a “special need, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Id. When, as here, the government alleges such a need, “courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties.” Id. at 314. The permissibility of a drug-testing program "is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619-620 (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979)).

. . .

Moving to the Georgia statute [in Chandler] in question, the Court held that merely aspirational goals, such as promoting public confidence and trust in elected officials and demonstrating the government’s commitment to the struggle against drug abuse, which are not tied to any real, concrete danger, do not constitute a “special need” sufficient to exempt a state from its normal Fourth Amendment requirements. According to the Court, Georgia had failed to present any evidence of a “concrete danger” that would demonstrate that the hazards the state sought to avoid were “real and not simply hypothetical.” Id. at 319-20. In particular, the state had asserted “no evidence of a drug problem among the State's elected officials,” nor did the covered individuals “typically ... perform high-risk, safety sensitive tasks.” Id. “Symbolic” public concerns, the Chandler Court concluded, warrant no special departure from the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 322.

. . .

In other words, the Governor’s safety rationale for the EO essentially relies on the Governor's common sense belief that because illegal drug use exists in the general population, it must also exist among state employees. And, the Governor predicts these drug-impaired employees will be less reliable and more accident-prone; thus, a public benefit will be attained by ensuring that all state employees under the Governor's purview are drug-free. The Governor may be right, but unlike the programs in Skinner, Nat’l Treasury, and Vernonia, which were moored to concrete dangers, the Governor’s program is detached from any readily-apparent or demonstrated risk. Rather, the Governor’s broadly-defined objectives more closely resemble the state of Georgia’s argument, rejected in Chandler, that the testing of state officials was justified because “the use of illegal drugs draws into question an official's judgment and integrity; jeopardizes the discharge of public functions, including antidrug law enforcement efforts; and undermines public confidence and trust in elected officials.” 520 U.S. at 318. And in Chandler, the Supreme Court held that without evidence of a drug problem among the state’s elected officials (who typically do not perform high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks), this justification was “symbolic, not ‘special,’” as required by the relevant precedents. Id. at 322.

The Union here asks for a permanent injunction, which requires three elements: (1) there was a legal violation; (2) there is a serious risk of continuing irreparable injury if an injunction is not granted; and (3) there are no adequate remedies at law. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, the Court finds that the EO, as applied to current employees at the covered agencies, is violative of the Fourth Amendment, and that these employees will suffer irreparable harm if subjected to it. See Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding that Fourth Amendment violation is enough to show irreparable harm); see also Am. Fed'n of Teachers-West Va., AFL-CIO v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 592 F. Supp. 2d 883 (S.D.W. Va. 2009); Bannister v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Leavenworth Cnty., Kan., 829 F. Supp. 1249 (D. Kan. 1993); Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (E.D. Mich. 2000), but see 309 F.3d 330 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that district court erred in granting preliminary injunction) vacated by 319 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2003). The Court also concludes that there is no adequate remedy at law in light of the immeasurable nature of the harm that will flow from the EO’s implementation; were the EO to be implemented, the current employees at the covered agencies would suffer a Fourth Amendment violation that cannot be remedied in monetary terms. “Indeed, one reason for issuing an injunction may be that damages, being immeasurable, will not provide a remedy at law.” Treasure Valley Potato Bargaining Asso. v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 497 F.2d 203, 218 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied 419 U.S. 999 (1974).

The Court is mindful, however, that injunctive relief should be limited in scope to the extent necessary to protect the interests of the parties. See Gibson v. Firestone, 741 F.2d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir. 1984). Because the Union did not contend that the EO is unconstitutional as applied to “prospective new hires,” meaning individuals who are not currently employed at covered agencies, the Court does not reach the issues of whether such prospective employees can be subjected to preemployment testing and subsequent random drug testing pursuant to the EO. However, the relief encompasses both Union and non-Union employees because the EO is unconstitutional as applied to them for precisely the same reasons. Accordingly, the Court grants permanent injunctive relief to all individuals currently employed at covered agencies.

StoptheDrugWar.org: Judge Rejects Florida State Employee Drug Testing by Phillip Smith

Jacksonville.com: Rick Scott's state worker drug tests ruled unconstitutional by Mike Marino

HuffPo: Rick Scott Drug Testing Executive Order Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge by Arthur Delaney

MiamiHerald.com: Judge: Fla. worker drug testing unconstitutional

“[T]he court does not find that Deputy Schneider's use of the density meter was unauthorized by the defendant’s consent to ‘take a quick look in the car.’” The search took six monits and qualified. United States v. Long Tien Dang, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56875 (D. Kan. April 24, 2012).*

A general objection to a USMJ’s R&R only requires plain error review. United States v. Tamayo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57126 (N.D. Ga. April 23, 2012)*:

Defendants make no attempt to specify why they disagree with the magistrate judge's conclusions. "In order to trigger de novo review of an R&R, the objection must be 'specific.'" United States v. Diaz, No. 1:09-CR-0037-WBH, 2011 WL 344093, at *1 (Jan. 31, 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b)(2)). "General objections which reassert arguments by reference to prior pleadings do not suffice." Id. (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1982). In the absence of objections filed in accordance with Rule 59(b)(2), this court need only perform plain error review. Id.

Running a stop sign was reason enough for a stop. State v. Edmonds, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 241 (April 23, 2012).*

How much does it take to be suspected of smuggling aliens? Not much. United States v. Castillo-Gamez, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8180 (11th Cir. April 24, 2012)*:

Here, the district court properly concluded that Barrientos had a reasonable suspicion that the minivan carried illegal aliens. As Barrientos testified, the minivan had out-of-state license plates, tinted windows, and appeared to be weighted down. Barrientos knew that smugglers often used I-95 to avoid the cameras and tolls on the Florida Turnpike. And when he pulled along side the minivan, Barrientos noticed that Castillo-Gamez appeared stiff and did not make eye contact. Considering these facts together, Barrientos had a reasonable suspicion that the minivan contained illegal aliens. See Bautista-Silva, 567 F.3d at 1272-74.

Defendant couldn’t appeal the search issue in his guilty plea without a conditional plea. United States v. Dorsey, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8213 (5th Cir. April 24, 2012).*

Defendant’s Franks claim was based on speculation and is unsupported by the tenor of the affidavit. If the officers had looked at his laptop and seen the child pornography, that would have only strengthened the probable cause, and it didn’t. United States v. Miller, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56878 (W.D. Va. April 24, 2012).*

Defendant’s evasive behavior in replacing the license plate on his car to avoid detection when was being investigated for a grow operation was reasonable suspicion. When officers stopped him, he was cooperative and admitted what he was doing. United States v. Valerio, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57038 (S.D. Fla. April 24, 2012).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the delay during a stop where it took time for the owner of the car to arrive or in challenging a stop based on a clear speeding violation. Owens v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56416 (M.D. Pa. April 23, 2012).*

InfoWars.com: Security Experts Send Congress Letter on Fourth Amendment Busting CISPA by Kurt Nimmo:

On Monday, a group of prominent engineers, professionals and academics posted an open letter to Congress stating their opposition to CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act that trashes the Fourth Amendment and privacy of internet users.

Later this week, CISPA will go to the House floor for a vote. On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul said CISPA represents the “latest assault on Internet freedom” and “is Big Brother writ large.”

Rep. Rogers’ Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523) and Sen. McCain’s SECURE IT Act (S. 2151) “nullify current legal protections against wiretapping and similar civil liberties violations for that kind of broad data sharing,” the letter states. “By encouraging the transfer of users’ private communications to US Federal agencies, and lacking good public accountability or transparency, these ‘cybersecurity’ bills unnecessarily trade our civil liberties for the promise of improved network security.”

Defendant’s wife left the house after an argument and went to her father’s to spend the night. She validly consented to a search of the house even though temporarily out. She was a co-owner, had her stuff there, and still lived there with equal control over the premises. United States v. Mooney, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8087 (11th Cir. April 23, 2012).

Stop was justified by following too close, and defendant was properly put into the patrol car for lying about possessing weapons. State v. Demcovitz, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 239 (April 20, 2012).*

Traffic stop led to inconsistent answers and reasonable suspicion which led to valid consent and a hidden compartment with drugs. United States v. Soto, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56304 (E.D. Ark. April 3, 2012).*

HuffPo: TSA Defends Pat-Down Of Crying 4-Year-Old Girl At Kansas Airport by Roxana Hegeman:

WICHITA, Kan. -- The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.

The incident has been garnering increasing media and online attention since the child's mother, Michelle Brademeyer of Montana, detailed the ordeal in a public Facebook post last week. The Transportation Security Administration is defending its agents, despite new procedures aimed at reducing pat-downs of children.

The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down.

Isabella had just learned about "stranger danger" at school, her grandmother said, adding that the girl was afraid and unsure about what was going on.

New Law Review article: A Fourth Amendment Theory for Arrestee DNA and Other Biometric Databases by David H. Kaye on SSRN. Abstract:

Routine DNA sampling following a custodial arrest process is now the norm in many jurisdictions, but is it consistent with the Fourth Amendment? The few courts that have addressed the question have disagreed on the answer, but all of them seem to agree on two points: (1) the reasonableness of the practice turns on a direct form of balancing of individual and governmental interests; and (2) individuals who are convicted — and even those who are merely arrested — have a greatly diminished expectation of privacy in their identities. This Article disputes these propositions and offers an improved framework for analyzing the constitutionality of databases of biometric data. It demonstrates that the opinions on DNA collection before conviction have lost sight of the foundations of balancing tests in Fourth Amendment analysis. It argues that balancing is acceptable only for “special needs” or “administrative search” cases, or for defining new exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The Article examines how DNA collection before conviction might be brought under the traditional special-needs doctrine and how it might fit within a new, but coherent exception for certain forms of biometric data. This framework permits the courts to analyze DNA databases without diluting the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, and it provides a sound rationale for the current law on arrestee fingerprinting.

The Republic: Group questions constitutionality of middle-of-the-night 'wake up calls' by Richmond police by Larry O'Dell:

Richmond police are violating residents' constitutional rights by waking them in the middle of the night with a knock on the door to admonish them for leaving valuables in plain sight in their parked cars, a civil liberties group said Wednesday.

The Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute said in a letter to Police Chief Bryan Norwood that the department's new "Wake Up Call" initiative invades residents' privacy and infringes on their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable police intrusions. The program also heightens the risk of a violent confrontation between police and an alarmed resident, the institute said.

"The recent Trayvon Martin incident from Florida should serve as a stark warning of how the fear and misunderstanding of a homeowner can turn a benign situation into tragedy involving loss of life," John W. Whitehead, executive director of the Rutherford Institute, wrote in the letter.