HAYNES

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164 (1st Cir. 1986)
  …ad considered the issue had recognized “the severe if not gross interference with a person’s privacy that occurs when guards conduct a visual inspection of body cavities”. Arruda v. Fair, 710 F. 2d 886, 887 (1st Cir.) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 999, 104 S.Ct. 502, 78 L.Ed.2d 693 (1983). See e.g., Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 558, 99 S.Ct. at 1884 (body-cavity searches “give[] us the most pause”); Hurley, 584 F. 2d at 611 (“gross violation of personal privacy”); Lilly, 576 F. 2d at 1246 (“few searches…
• Watt v. City OF Richardson Police Dep't, 849 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1988)
  …emands of institutional security. See, e.g., Hay v. Waldron, 834 F. 2d 481 (5th Cir.1988); Goff v. Nix, 803 F. 2d 358 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 115, 98 L.Ed.2d 73 (1987); Arruda v. Fair, 710 F. 2d 886 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 999, 104 S.Ct. 502, 78 L.Ed.2d 693 (1983). Searches of minor offense arres-tees who would be detained pending the posting of bond, often for short periods of time, have been scrutinized much more closely. Stewart v. Lubbock County, Texas, 767 F. 2d 153…
• Cookish v. Commissioner Ronald Powell, 945 F.2d 441 (1st Cir. 1991)
  …, 863 F. 2d 124, 132 (1st Cir.1988). We had recognized that a “severe if not gross interference with a person’s privacy [] occurs when guards conduct a visual inspection of body cavities.” Arruda v. Fair, 710 F. 2d 886, 887 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 999, 104 S.Ct. 502, 78 L.Ed.2d 693 (1983).’ By that time, it was clearly established that body cavity searches had to be reasonable. Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F. 2d at 172. The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise defin…