Search and seizure

In the weirdest judicial decision to come lately from the Land of the Free, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided, in Coddington v. Evanko, that taking hair samples is not covered by the Fourth Amendement. ("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.")

They are referring to an earlier decision that states that taking a hair sample is not a search, and now they decided that it is not a seizure either, and therefore is not covered by the Fourth Amendement and can be done without a warrant or a probable cause. For comparison, things like blood samples and fingernail scrapings are covered by the Fourth Amendment; things like fingerprints, voice samples and handwriting samples aren't.

The case was as following: William Coddington, a Pennsylvania State Trooper, reported to work one day and then was told that he is suspected of using cocaine, and was ordered to give hair samples. He submitted to taking the hair samples, which resulted in bald patches on his scalp. No evidence of illegal drugs was found, and no evidence of a probable cause given.

The court, in its infinite wisdom, decided that "there is no greater expectation of privacy with respect to hair which is on public display than with respect to voice, handwriting or fingerprints", that having one's hair forcibly cut is not an "annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience" and that's if the guy has kept his hair so short that they couldn't take a sufficient sample without producing bald spots it's his own damn problem.

I suppose now the citizens are expected to keep their hair sufficiently long that in case any police officer wants a sample without any probable cause they could give him or her a sufficient sample without any visible cosmetic damage. Unless, of course, every cop starts asking for one, or unless the cops suddenly increase the sample size dramatically, in which case nobody has that much hair.

This decision means, of course, that police is allowed to cut a sample of anyone's hair without a probable cause. Wonder if they can be sued for assault and battery? If they only take the already-loose hairs, then probably not even that. And it's fairly easy to take a sample of loose hairs from any person you are arresting - just run your hand through their hair and you've got a few.

Don't know if Mr. Coddington has ever used illegal drugs, but I sure don't need a hair sample to figure out that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is smoking some really weird shit.

And if having one's hair forcibly cut is not an "annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience", then hey, a couple of my friends need some practice using clippers, and dear judges Nygaard, McKee and Chertoff are most cordially invited to be models for them. I suppose if they accept this invitation it does not qualify as forcible, but I am sure we can make them feel annoyed and frightened enough.