Devina Douglas, Attorney at Law (707) 408-3529
  • Home
  • Profile
  • Practice Areas
    • DUI
    • Assault Crimes
    • Theft Crimes
    • Domestic Violence
    • Drug Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Homicide
    • CA DMV Medical Reevaluation Hearings
    • Civil Harrassment Restraining Orders >
      • Restraining Order-related >
        • Other Types of Protective Orders
        • If You Are Served With A Protective Order
        • Resources for Victims of Domestic Violence
  • Contact
  • Results
  • Other information
    • Devina's Blog
    • Cal. Fish and Game Updates
    • Commonly-Requested Documents >
      • Local Ordinances
    • Reference Links
  • Disclaimer

Case update: Does Your Right to PrivacyExtend to Preventing the Police From Watching You Use The Restroom?

7/25/2019

 
​Imagine being at home when the police show up to execute a search warrant for your home, looking for documents, computer records, and electronic information storage devices.  …And you’ve got to use the restroom.  Should a same-gender officer be able to insist on coming into the bathroom with you to watch you relieve yourself, all under the guise of ensuring you don’t destroy or hide evidence while you’re in there? Thankfully, the court said no. 
In Ioane v. Hodges[1],the IRS suspected Mr. Ioane criminal fraud. The IRS sought, and was granted, a search warrant, allowing them to access the Ioane home, looking for documents, computer records, and electronic information storage devices that could be evidence of that fraud. The Ioanes were told then were free to leave, but would not be allowed back into the house if they chose to leave. So they stayed, waiting patiently in the kitchen.  At some point during the search, Mrs. Ioane informed the Agents that she needed to use the bathroom. A female agent accompanied her to the bathroom, told Mrs. Ioane to remove her clothing, and then told Mrs. Ioane to hold up her dress while she relieved herself. Feeling rightfully violated, Mrs. Ioane filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 
First, the court decided that Mrs. Ioane was able to file suit as the female officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability, after balancing Mrs. Ioane’s right “to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly” with the government’s “need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Generally, the law defaults to finding that the government is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts demonstrate that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, andthe right was clearly established at the time of the asserted violation. Because this case revolved around the 4thAmendment, and the 4thAmendment always begs in inquiry into the reasonableness of the government’s actions, the court was, in short, asking if the female agent’s demand to actually watch Mrs. Ioane relieve herself was reasonable under the circumstances of that case, specially looking at “(1) the scope of the particular intrusion, (2) the manner in which it is conducted, (3) the justification for initiating it, and (4) the place in which it is conducted.”
So let’s walk through each of these factors.  First, as us reasonable minds would expect, the court had no trouble announcing that it isa violation of one’s right to bodily privacy to require that person to expose him- or herself to an officer. Because the Court logically reasoned that the “naked body” is the most “basic subject of privacy,” it found that “the scope of the intrusion into [the wife’s] bodily privacy here was significant.” Second, the court found it was important that Mrs. Ioane was not detainedat the time of this intrusion, and thus was entitled to more freedom from the scrutiny of the agent. This was especially so as there was no reason to believe that Mrs. Ioane was in possession of any weapons or evidence at the time she requested to use the bathroom. Lastly, it was noted this intrusion occurred in the Ioane home, and a person’s home has always been held to be a place in which we can expect to heightened level, of privacy. 
Thus, the court held that forcing a person who has not been detained to expose him- or herself to a law enforcement officer, is a Fourth Amendment violation unless the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the person be armed, or probable cause to believe he or she is secreting evidence.


[1](9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2018) 903 F.3rd929.
edu birdie price link
11/27/2019 10:19:05 pm

In my opinion, the school management is facing lots of difficulties in implementing their responsibilities and duties towards the strictness and placing controls for fighting. Students need to be friends with each other because fighting is not a good habit, it brings bad endings.


Comments are closed.

    Author

    Devina strives to make information relevant to the lives of her clients easily accessible. 

    Archives

    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    April 2024
    August 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    January 2017

    Categories

    All
    DMV Related
    Domestic Violence
    Drugs
    DUI
    General Criminal Defense
    Gun Rights
    Marijuana Related
    Marijuana-Related
    SCOTUS News
    Weird News

    RSS Feed

Proudly serving Sonoma, Marin, Napa, Mendocino and Lake Counties (and occasionally venturing as far as Yolo, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties).
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly

​This website is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. Using this site or communicating with the Law Office of Devina Douglas through this site does not form an attorney/client relationship. This site is legal advertising. Please review the full disclaimer for more information. (LINK TO FULL DISCLAIMER PAGE)
  • Home
  • Profile
  • Practice Areas
    • DUI
    • Assault Crimes
    • Theft Crimes
    • Domestic Violence
    • Drug Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Homicide
    • CA DMV Medical Reevaluation Hearings
    • Civil Harrassment Restraining Orders >
      • Restraining Order-related >
        • Other Types of Protective Orders
        • If You Are Served With A Protective Order
        • Resources for Victims of Domestic Violence
  • Contact
  • Results
  • Other information
    • Devina's Blog
    • Cal. Fish and Game Updates
    • Commonly-Requested Documents >
      • Local Ordinances
    • Reference Links
  • Disclaimer