Court Sets New Standard for Admissable Ass-Searches

In a decision that sets a new standard for what constitutes a legal search by police, as well as serving to remind why doing crack is a terrible idea, The New York Court of Appeals ruled that "reasonableness" should remain the touchstone for searches in order to not violate the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Defining reasonableness was the basis of the case in question, which involved the searches of body cavities. The NY Times summarizes:

The case before the court involved Azim Hall of New York, who was arrested on Feb. 8, 2005, on charges that he sold two pieces of crack cocaine outside a grocery store. After his conviction, Mr. Hall filed an appeal, arguing that the police had conducted an illegal search by pulling a string, attached to a plastic bag containing crack cocaine, that was dangling from his rectum. A State Supreme Court judge dismissed the indictment, but the Appellate Division reversed that.

The most recent decision said that the State Supreme Court was correct in its initial finding and that pulling the string attached to the bag of crack secreted up a dealer's ass was an unreasonable search. To pull the string, a warrant is required.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Dave Hogarty in News on March 26, 2008 4:51 PM

Comments [rss]

Robot

Gross!

Peter

Crack users should take note of where the drug's likely been.

mjb_

er -- warrentless wiretapping.

mjb_

"reasonableness" and "warrant" are not synonymous.

michael v. hayden, the former director of the NSA, then deputy directory of national security, and now director of central intelligence/head of the CIA once argued that the 4th amendment meant "reasonable" searches in LIEU of probable cause (which a warrant will certify, but isn't *always* needed for).

you guys used the same vocabulary as him to describe something different -- that a warrant was required.

the trigger is *probable* *cause*, which, outside of certain specifically defined things, requires a warrant.

"reasonableness" over "probable cause" is a much murkier spot.

hayden was defending warrently wiretapping.

and it a slippery slope from there, essentially a "just trust us", "just trust our reason" argument.

blablanyc

Maybe we really are ruled by aliens? UFIA!

rcltrh

Id say it shouldnt be a problem to get a judge to sign a warrant if the string is visible, not to mention just make the perp stand there cuffed and naked for the 2-3 hours is might take to get the warrant. Its not like the string is going to disappear, and if it falls out voila, theres the evidence..

eyekantspel

The links says

Police can strip-search and visually inspect suspected drug traffickers based on probable cause but need a search warrant before physically touching suspects, the state's highest court has ruled.

that's just stupid. What's the purpose of a strip search then? If they visually inspect and see a string, they're then supposed to stop and get a warrant? Pull the friggin string. I note it's a 4/3 decision, so the good news is that almost half the judges involved aren't idiots.