[Scoutmaster]

What's most frustrating about this case is that David Eckert, the probee, didn't win because of the anal probes; he won because he was anally probed outside the jurisdiction of a warrant.

Law enforcement had a search warrant to search the guy's body (I'd like to see the probable cause affidavit for that), but it was good only in Luna County.

A hospital physician in Luna County refused to perform the anal search on ethical grounds, so the police took the victim to a hospital in a different county.

Their search warrant was not valid there - not for the Hidalgo County sheriff's department, the Deming County police, the hospital where the probes were conducted, nor the physicians who performed the probes.

If the anal probes had been performed in Luna County, this may have been considered perfectly legal. That's distressing.

[Wolfie]

Well, it is a Drug WAR, after all.

[OneWingedShark]

What's most frustrating about this case is that David Eckert, the probee, didn't win because of the anal probes; he won because he was anally probed outside the jurisdiction of a warrant. Law enforcement had a search warrant to search the guy's body (I'd like to see the probable cause affidavit for that), but it was good only in Luna County.
[…]
If the anal probes had been performed in Luna County, this may have been considered perfectly legal. That's distressing.

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

vs. Justice Alito in Kentucky v. King:

The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity.
[…]
The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement.

IOW, while the court acknowledges the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, the superior understanding of the Supreme Court repudiates the implicit requirement of a warrant to be required to effect the search or seizure of person or property.

IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY GOVERNMENT. [Direct Link]
The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy [Direct Link]	The Modern Democratic Party & You [Direct Link]