It seems they are basing the decision on a few earlier decisions: "...the Ninth Circuit ruled in United States. v. Aukai that "airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings."
Substitute jail for aircraft and wheeeee The definition of a search: "In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable." 'The Supreme Court ruled that some searches and seizures may violate the reasonableness requirement under the Fourth Amendment, even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope. Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed." Thus, the reasonableness requirement and the warrant requirement are somewhat different.' 'The reasonableness requirement applies not just to a search in combination with a seizure, but also to a search without a seizure, as well as to a seizure without a search.' This is preeeeety close to the ruling with two differences/questions: What is the definition of reasonable and is having a warrant enough justification when the reasonableness requirement is removed? Other ruling point to "yes" "A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, if the arresting officer has probable cause." "To that end, the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation," reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false." "Searches of prison cells are subject to no restraints relating to reasonableness or probable cause..." I guess they just broadened cells to cells and people that would go in them. A reason to do searches whenever possible! "The Supreme Court held in Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) and Herring v. United States (2009), that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence found due to negligence regarding a government database, as long as the arresting police officer relied on that database in "good faith" and that the negligence was not pervasive." So here we have a mix of rulings that say searches and evidence obtained from them are allowed in various circumstances that may seem to violate the 4th amendment at first glance. Some say the decisions are up to the discretion of the officer, though perfectly reasonable when executing an arrest warrant. Officers are not to be held accountable as long as they are acting in good faith, regardless. Officers had much freedom before the ruling. The SCOTUS distilled everything down into one statement. It doesn't mean it is the correct decision, or the right one, but I can see how they came to it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:349418 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
