Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Family Illegally Strip Searched By Police

April 26, 2015 by Fred Sisto

Family Illegally Strip Searched By Police

In Doe v. Groody, decided on March 19, 2004, the majority held that it was clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates a police officer’s sworn statement (the affidavit) made at the time that a warrant is requested, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in the affidavit.

The search warrant for Doe’s residence was attached to another piece of paper titled “Search Warrant and Affidavit.” That separate paper contained open blocks for someone to type information. In response to the questions “date of violation” and “probable cause belief,” it specifically referred to the typed affidavit of probable cause attached to the warrant. But in answering the question “specific description of premises and/or persons to be searched,” the affidavit was not mentioned. Rather, the form contained a typewritten entry naming only John Doe and his residence.

Armed with the warrant and anticipating that they would encounter females inside the home, police enlisted a female officer to be available to assist in the search. The female officer removed both Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs bathroom. They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found.

Doe (the family name is altered to protect their identities) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the officers illegally strip searched the wife and child. Officers appealed when the case was not dismissed against them on the grounds of “qualified immunity”, based on their status as police officers.  Qualified immunity is a defense that requires courts to enter judgment in favor of a government employee accused of violating individual rights unless the employee’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”.

Thus, the central issue in Doe was whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that strip searching the suspect’s wife and ten-year-old daughter without a warrant was unlawful.  The majority’s reasoning turned on the sharp distinction that federal law (and New Jersey law) draws between what is authorized in a warrant, and what is merely requested by the police in the affidavit.

The majority noted that the provisions of the affidavit seeking to justify an “all occupants” search was based on the sworn statement that “visitors may be present purchasing drugs and that dealers often give contraband to non-residents in the hopes they will not be searched.” The affidavit contained no assertion that narcotics dealers often hide drugs on family members and young children, as opposed to visitors. Thus, even if the affiants had probable cause to believe that Doe would hide drugs on his wife and child, the judge reviewing the affidavit would not have known about the basis for it.  This made it that much more unreasonable to read permission to search the wife and child into the text of the warrant.

The majority also cited to U.S. Supreme Court precedent that a search warrant for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 100 (1979).  Ultimately, the majority held that the search of Jane and Mary Doe violated the Fourth Amendment in the criminal law context and that this violation transgressed “clearly established” rights in the civil lawsuit context.

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Interrogation, Know Your Rights, News Tagged With: Criminal Law, Legal Procedures

Testimonials

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation.

Raumelis R   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 2)
  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 1)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 2)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 1)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 4)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 3)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 2)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 1)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership
 
Top Criminal Defense Attorney in Brick

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Brick Township Office*:
223 Drum Point Road, Suite 1
Brick Township, NJ 08723

Sea Girt Office*:
2150 NJ-35,
Suite 225
Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

en English
en Englishes Spanish