Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Fourth Amendment”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Drug screening and criminal prosecution of pregnant women.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment rights of 10 women were violated by a hospital that provided them prenatal care. The incidence of prenatal drug testing for criminal prosecution with or without a woman's knowledge is increasing. Concurrently, funding and availability of drug treatment programs for pregnant women are declining. Nurses and physicians who act as advocates for the state rather than the patient damage the patient-provider relationship and breach their ethical responsibility to the patient.

Confidentiality↗
PubMed1994

The case for mandatory HIV testing of active duty sex offenders.

As of May 1993, at least 23 states had passed laws permitting, or requiring, human immunodeficiency virus testing of sexual offenders. Several others have recently passed, or are considering, such legislation. At present, no such specific requirement exists under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This paper presents an overview of the competing Fourth Amendment privacy rights of accused/convicted offenders, victims' rights, the usefulness and validity of such testing, and the public health mission of the military medical services. In addition, potential tort liability of the armed services is discussed. The author presents arguments supporting mandatory testing of accused offenders meeting minimal "probable cause" requirements, and sharing test results with the physician of complainants/ victims.

AIDS Serodiagnosis↗
PubMed2002

Genetic testing in the workplace: the employer's coin toss.

A toss of the coin by the modern-day employer reveals two options regarding genetic testing in the workplace. The employer may choose to take advantage of increasingly precise, available, and affordable genetic testing in order to ascertain the genetic characteristics--and deficiencies--of its employees. This outcome exposes the employer to a vast array of potential litigation and liability relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fourth Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and state legislation designed to protect genetic privacy. Alternatively, the employer may neglect to indulge in this trend of genetic testing and may face liability for employer negligence, violations of federal legislation such as OSHA regulations, and increased costs associated with insuring the health of genetically endangered employees. In the rapidly developing universe of genetic intelligence, the employer is faced with a staggering dilemma.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome↗
PubMed1979

Pharmacy inspections: constitutional without a warrant?

The implications of the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marshall vs. Barlow's, Inc., regarding warrantless inspections of pharmacies are discussed. Reviewed are the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, related U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Camera vs. Municipal Court and See vs. City of Seattle), new "probable cause" standards, and exceptions to the requirement of warrants for inspections. The effect of the Barlow's case with specific reference to FDA, DEA and state board of pharmacy inspections is discussed. Although the Barlow's case has provided further case law in the area of administrative inspections, each case still requires individual resolution. DEA inspections are well delineated by statute and regulation. Under the "licensing exceptions," warrantless pharmacy inspections by the FDA and by boards of pharmacy are probably permissible.

Government Agencies↗
PubMed1993

Technologic cornucopias, the Bill of Rights, and slippery slopes.

Drug testing at the worksite is controversial. Drug testing offers the potential for massive erosion of Fourth Amendment rights. There are no easy answers to this dilemma, but the author provides some personal insight. Drug use testing should be balanced between societal needs and individual privacy rights.

Biotechnology↗
PubMed2002

A population at risk: civil commitment of substance abusers after Kansas v. Hendricks.

In its 1997 decision, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court radically changed the face of civil commitment. In finding the Kansas Sexually Violent Predators Act constitutional, the Court liberalized the first constitutional requirement for involuntary commitment from "mental illness" to a much broader "mental abnormality" standard, without correspondingly restricting the second requirement of dangerousness. The decision essentially authorizes states to civilly commit a broad range of individuals without sufficient due process protections. This Comment explores the possibilities for expansion of civil commitment in the wake of Hendricks. It argues that the holding was unjustifiably broad, focusing in particular on the potential danger facing substance abusers. In conclusion, it offers several suggestions for mitigating the potential misuse of this dangerous precedent.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed2005

Electronic products; performance standard for diagnostic x-ray systems and their major components. Final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule to amend the Federal performance standard for diagnostic x-ray systems and their major components (the performance standard). The agency is taking this action to update the performance standard to account for changes in technology and use of radiographic and fluoroscopic x-ray systems and to fully utilize the International System of Units to describe radiation-related quantities and their units when used in the performance standard. For clarity and ease of understanding, FDA is republishing the complete contents, as amended, of three sections of the performance standard regulations and is amending a fourth section without republishing it in its entirety. This action is being taken under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), as amended by the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (SMDA).

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed2003

The case for national DNA identification cards.

Foes of the United States have demonstrated their ability to strike at the heart of this country. Fear of renewed attacks and a desire for greater national security have now prompted many to call for improvements in the national personal identification system. In particular, the possibility of a national identification card containing the carrier's DNA information is being seriously considered. However, this raises difficult questions. Would such a card system, and the extraction of individuals' DNA it entails, violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? This article will shows that such a card system could in fact be found to be constitutional under the law of privacy as it stands today.

DNA↗
PubMed2004

Beware! Uncle Sam has your DNA: legal fallout from its use and misuse in the U.S.

Technology has provided state and federal governments with huge collections of DNA samples and identifying profiles stored in databanks. That information can be used to solve crimes by matching samples from convicted felons to unsolved crimes, and has aided law enforcement in investigating and convicting suspects, and exonerating innocent felons, even after lengthy incarceration. Rights surrounding the provision of DNA samples, however, remain unclear in light of the constitutional guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and privacy concerns. The courts have just begun to consider this issue, and have provided little guidance. It is unclear whether the laws governing protected health information are applicable to the instant situation, and if so, the degree to which they apply. DNA databanks are not uniformly regulated, and it is possible that DNA samples contained in them may be used for purposes unintended by donors of the samples. As people live their lives, they leave bits of their DNA behind. They cannot be assured that these tiny specimens will not be taken or used against their will or without their knowledge for activities such as profiling to measure tendencies such as thrill-seeking, aggressiveness, or crimes with threatening behavior. Existing racial or ethnic discrimination and profiling may also encompass genetic discrimination and profiling, creating societal class distinctions. This article will explore the constitutionality of collecting genetic materials, the ethics of such activities, and balance the social good in solving crime and deterrence against the individual's security, liberty, and privacy.

Civil Rights↗