Mini List for week 6+ reading - Mini list week 6 +...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Mini list week 6 + Limitations on Strip Searches of Students Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding – A 13 year old middle school girl was suspected by the school officials for having drugs. A planner was found of hers that had several knives and cigarette, lighters, and other contrabands. She denied that they were hers. They also suspected her friend of having drugs. They asked the friend to empty out her pockets, and they found the drugs. They strip searched her, and found no more. They then searched Redding, and found no drugs, strip search and still found no drugs. Although the school was acting within reasonable suspicion, the strip search was an unreasonable compared to the nature of the crime. (Look at CB) Suspicion less Safety Searches in Airports, Subways, Public Buildings, etc US v. Marquez (2005) – Man was at an airport, and he was picked randomly to search. They found two kilograms of cocaine stashed in his pants. It was a legal search because society does not see baggage or self as a subject to privacy in an airport. US v. Davis (1973) – Airport screening are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft. US v. Hartwell (2006) – when defendant set off the magnetometer, wand inspection was reasonable, stating that the search is less offensive because air passengers are on notice that they will be searched. US v. Aukai (2007) – Mr. Aukai was subjected to a 2 nd inspection at the airport because he had no ID. In the middle of the 2 nd search, he wanted to not go through it and wanted to opt not to fly. The TSA continued to search him, and found drugs. Courts held this was reasonable, because the searches are not based on consent, they are based on “attempted entry.” Once someone tries to go in, then they can be forced to go through. Terrorist could use the “opt not to fly” as a cheap alternative to scout out the security system of the airport for flaws. We don’t want that. MacWade v. Kelly (2006) – Random searches on subway passengers were reasonable to prevent terrorist constituted a special need that is distinct from ordinary post hoc criminal investigation. It showed that government interest in searching was immediate and substantial, and searches were minimally intrusive (people may decline searches as long as they leave subway and police can only search containers capable of concealing explosives, and they last only a few seconds, uniformed personnel will conduct them out in the open which reduces fear and stigma that removal to a hidden area can cause. Cassidy v. Chertoff (2006) – Searches on Ferries were constitutional because ferries are mass transportation, and it could be a terrorist target, but it is definitely part of the nationwide security policy that includes suspicionless searches Johnston v. Tampa Bay Sports Authority (2008) – pat-downs at security searches at the Super
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/18/2011 for the course CRIM. PRO 125 taught by Professor Sobel during the Spring '11 term at California Western School of Law.

Page1 / 14

Mini List for week 6+ reading - Mini list week 6 +...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online