Week 6 Notes Random - Week 6 Notes Strip Search Limitation on Strip Searches of Students*see Safford Unified School District#1 v Redding Suspicion

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Week 6 Notes – Strip Search Limitation on Strip Searches of Students *see Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding* Suspicion less Safety Searches in Airports, Subways, Public Buildings, etc The Supreme Court upheld magnetometer searches of persons and carry-ons at airports as reasonable. Reason: 1) State interest in protecting safety of air travel was high 2) State could not be accommodated by limiting searches to those who were reasonable suspicious because some travelers may pose a safety risk even though they have no intent to violate the law. 3) The searches are minimally intrusive a. Everyone is searched b. Everyone is notified in advance c. Travelers are free to refuse the search and choose some other form of travel The 3 factors from Davis for airport security are: 1) No more extensive or intensive than necessary in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives 2) Is confined in good faith to that purpose 3) Passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly On Subways, people can opt out not to be search, but must immediately leave the subway. It’s the government’s way of deterring terrorist. Roadblocks, Checkpoints and Suspicionless Seizures The courts are concern with the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Temporary Checkpoints to Check for DUI Dissent by Justice Rehnquist, saying that these unexpected checkpoints on familiar local roads would be startling and distressing , and people can infer it is not simply business as usual. Drug Checkpoints *see City of Indianapolis v. Edmond* Dissent by Justices Rehnquist and Thomas, and Scalia Just because the focus can shift from looking for narcotics to looking for drunk drivers, the outcome could turn out the same, and the road block would be considered constitutional. They believe this is such an obvious loophole. Also, the fact that they use drug sniffing dogs was already ruled to be constitutional because of the minimum amount of intrusiveness. Thomas Dissenting saying, that as long as the police had a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stop, it should be in the same category as Michigan v. Sitz and US v. Martinez-Fuerte.
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 / 4

Week 6 Notes Random - Week 6 Notes Strip Search Limitation on Strip Searches of Students*see Safford Unified School District#1 v Redding Suspicion

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