Stufflebeam v. Harris, 06-4046 (8th Cir. 2008)-The Court held: Police could not arrest a passenger in a vehicle simply because he did not comply with the officer and show identification. The officer needs reasonable suspicion that the passenger is engaged in criminal conduct before compelling him to show identification. The Court stated, "...arresting Stufflebeam, a passenger not suspected of criminal activity, because he adamantly refused to comply with an unlawful demand that he identify himself. No reasonable police officer could believe he had probable cause to arrest this stubborn and irritating, but law abiding citizen.
US v. Bridges, 499 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1974)-The warrantless swabbing of the hands of a suspect in a bombing did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957)-A police officer had a physician at a hospital draw blood from the unconscious driver of a vehicle that caused a fatality accident. The Court held that the drawing of blood did not “shock the conscience” nor did the method offend a “sense of justice.” The warrantless drawing of blood did not violate the defendant’s due process.
Pace v. City of Des Moines, 201 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2000)-The police officer had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in a knife attack on a woman. The officer went to the defendant’s home/business and entered the business entrance. He ordered the defendant to remove his shirt so the officer can photograph the defendant’s tattoo.
The Court held:
There is a legally relevant distinction between the daily revelations of one's voice, face, and fingerprints that are an inevitable part of living in an interactive world, on the one hand, and the occasional use of a tank top on the other. Although it is perhaps possible to imagine a person who so consistently bares himself or herself from the waist up that all reasonable expectations of privacy for that area are lost, wearing a tank top "two or three" times (or even "numerous" times) is surely not enough to produce so drastic a result. Were we to find otherwise, regular visitors to public beaches and swimming pools would be surprised to discover that their visits have cost them the lasting loss of a reasonable expectation of privacy over very substantial portions of their bodies. We do not believe that any reasonable interpretation of Dionisio and its progeny could lead to such a conclusion.
Expectation of Privacy-
US v. Wells, 11-5162 (10th Cir. 2011)-Tulsa police officers were suspected of stealing from drug dealers. A sting operation was set up where the officers were told of a drug dealer with a lot of cash take was staying in a motel. An undercover officer posing as the dealer rented the room and intalled surveillance equipment. The officers contacted the dealer and obtained consent to search. The officers entered the room without the dealer and stole several thousand dollars. The officers were arrested. They fought to suppress the recordings claiming that they had an expectation of privacy. The Court held that the officers were not invited guests, but merely legally in the room. They had no expectation of privacy. The recordings were admissible.