Was that a strip search?

November 15, 2007

The venerable SCOTUSBlog (Can a blog be venerable? If so, this one is) has put the Maryland buttocks-search case on its list of cases that have a good chance of getting cert. It’s the fifth one down.

If you recall, back in June, the Court of Appeals voted 4-3 to reverse the conviction of John Paulino, whose upper buttocks were spread and searched at a car wash by a police officer looking for cocaine. (A tipster had told police that Paulino routinely hid his drugs between his cheeks.) The majority, led by Judge Greene, said that the police failed to protect Paulino’s privacy when they reached into his exposed undershorts. The dissenters, led by Judge Battaglia, said the search was reasonable; in a separate two-paragraph dissent, Judge Cathell said that if Paulino wanted privacy, he should not have worn his pants so low.

The state is asking the Supreme Court to clarify what constitutes a strip search and whether the Court of Appeals has now outlawed “entirely reasonable police conduct,” according to its cert petition.

Do you think SCOTUS will take this one? Did the Court of Appeals go too far here?

-CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Sphere: Related Content

Comments

Got something to say?





  • Law

  • Business

  • Archives

  • Visit Eye on Annapolis

    Check out our blog on the legislative session, Eye on Annapolis.
  • Categories

Law

The Daily Record’s been Maryland’s legal newspaper for 120 years or so. Now, we want to be Maryland’s legal blog, too. Click here to join the discussion and read posts by our legal team, including our Monday law blog round-up.

RSS Law posts

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • JessieX: Duh.
  • david halbritter: another halbritter served west virginia from wheeling unit so guess that makes me a yankee darnit ....
  • Gerald Conrad: While I cannot agree with the trial lawyers’ reasoning, I do agree the American Tort Reform...
  • Kathy: Closed on 50 Silo Point units ??? Check the SDAT tax records, only 1 unit has changed hands so far....
  • Anonymous: As both a lawyer and a client (since I’m in-house), $92,000 for a new attorney is ridiculous. I...

On Commenting

We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.

Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.