Content deleted Content added
Legalskeptic (talk | contribs) added infobox |
removed Category:United States case law using HotCat; rm parent cat |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Lawsuit}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case
| court = [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit]]▼
|Litigants=Doe v. Groody
|CourtSeal=Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.svg
|ArgueDate=
|ArgueYear=
|DecideDate=October 10,
|DecideYear=1990
|FullName=
| citations = [[Case citation|361 F.3d 232]] (3rd Cir. 2004)▼
|Citations=[[Case citation|361]] [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/361/232/582011/ 232] (3rd Cir. 2004)
|Prior=
| judges = [[Samuel Alito]], [[Thomas L. Ambro]], & [[Michael Chertoff]]▼
|Subsequent=
|Holding=
|Majority=Chertoff
|JoinMajority=Ambro
|Dissent=Alito
|LawsApplied=
}}
The '''''Doe v. Groody''''', [[Case citation|361]] [[F.3d]] 232 (3d Cir. 2004) [[lawsuit]] concerned a [[strip-search]] of a 10
==Background==
▲The '''''Doe v. Groody''''', 361 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2004) [[lawsuit]] concerned a [[strip-search]] of a 10 year old girl and her mother despite the fact that neither were [[Crime|criminal]] suspects nor named in any [[search warrant]]. In applying for a search warrant, officers requested the right to search whoever was in the house and were refused that request.
The [[Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania]] Drug Task Force suspected the husband and father of the plaintiffs of selling [[methamphetamines]] so they procured a search warrant for him, the house, his car and anyone customers that were present. The wife and daughter were not listed as suspects. When the police were executing the warrant, they had a female [[parking enforcement officer]] take the wife and daughter to the bathroom and perform a strip search but no drugs were found on them. When the pair sued, the police officers claimed [[qualified immunity]].
==Majority opinion==
Line 30 ⟶ 35:
Judge [[Samuel Alito]] wrote a dissenting opinion saying that [[police]] officers did not violate the Constitution when they strip-searched the mother and her ten-year-old daughter. Alito stated in section I of his dissent that the affidavit accompanying the warrant ''"...seeks permission to search all occupants of the residence..."'' and argues, again in section I, that ''"The warrant indisputably incorporated the affidavit..."''
Judge [[Michael Chertoff]]’s majority opinion asserted that Alito’s position would effectively nullify the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment’s]] warrant requirement and “transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliché rubber stamp.”
Media attention on the case and Alito's opinion grew when he was nominated by [[
==Sources==
*{{wikisource-inline}}
*{{caselaw source
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/785423/john-doe-parent-and-natural-guardian-of-mary-doe-a-minor-jane-doe-parent/
| justia =https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/361/232/582011/
| other_source1 = OpenJurist
| other_url1 =https://openjurist.org/361/f3d/232
| other_source2 = Google Scholar
| other_url2 =https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=217238514071578680
}}
[[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit cases]]
[[Category:
[[Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law]]
[[Category:1990 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States controlled substances case law]]
[[Category:Strip search]]
| |||