Recent Posts in Search & Seizure Category

In a ruling that sets new limits on school searches, the U.S. Supreme Court held Thursday that a school official in Arizona violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a 13-year-old girl by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen.

The court affirmed a March 2008 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, in which the court, sitting en banc, held that school officials violated the Forth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures when they strip-searched Arizona middle school student Savana Redding.

In an 8-1 decision, the court called this search degrading, unreasonable and unconstitutional.

Justice David H. Souter, in what could be his final opinion before his retirement, said a strip-search is "categorically distinct" from other efforts to find drugs or weapons on campus because it is embarrassing and humiliating to the children who are targeted.

In the past, the court has said school officials can search purses, backpacks or lockers if they have reason to believe a student has drugs. And twice, justices have upheld mandatory drug testing of high schoolers, including athletes, even when there was no reason to think any of them was using drugs. But requiring a student to remove her clothes goes too far, Souter said. He suggested such a search would be justified only if a school official had strong reason to believe a student was hiding a dangerous drug or a weapon in his or her underwear.

Souter agreed that the vice principal had reasonable grounds for questioning Savana about drugs and for searching her backpack. But he went much too far, Souter added.

Ginsburg, the court's only woman, said the vice principal's conduct was inexcusable. He had no real evidence to suspect Savana of wrongdoing: He did not contact her mother, and he made Savana sit in the office for several hours after the strip-search, she said.

The justices divided in an unusual fashion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy were in dissent along with Alito.  The court's 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect, particularly when the alleged offense is nothing more serious than a traffic violation.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless vehicle searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest.  He stated, "Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result."

This new ruling which is binding precedent on all 50 states upsets a police practice that has developed since the court, 28 years ago, first authorized warrantless vehicle searches immediately following an arrest.

The Courts decision was based on the case of a defendant, Rodney Joseph Gant, who was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car. They found cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

The trial court said the evidence could be used against Gant, but Arizona appeals courts overturned the convictions because the officers already had secured the scene and thus faced no threat to their safety or concern about evidence being preserved.

Gant was placed under arrest for driving on a suspended license and he already was at least 8 feet away from his car when he was arrested.

This decision is an important civil liberties issue which reinforces that the constitution protects individuals from warrantless searches without probable cause. Prior to this ruling, police officers routinely invade suspects' privacy by conducting warrantless searches when there is no chance suspects could have access to their vehicles. Los Angeles Criminal Attorney's and their clients should be knowledgeable of this changing area of law and the possible defenses it now allows in numerous cases, particularly drug possession crimes.