Court rules privacy does not extend to hair

Thanks to Loretta Nall for sending in this atrocity. Seems the US 3rd Circuit court doesn't believe taking copious amounts of hair from your head and body, constitutes an unreasonable search.

Under Mills, the court of appeals explained, the taking of hair samples did not intrude upon any reasonable expectation of privacy and thus did not constitute a Fourth Amendment "search." Even the degrading manner in which his hair was taken -- in particular, the quantity and the fact that it left Coddington with prominent bald spots on his head -- did not make a constitutional difference.

If the Fourth Amendment did not apply, it followed necessarily that the police activity did not have to be "reasonable" (that is, based upon an adequate level of suspicion). Coddington was therefore left with no case.

The defendant, a state policeman accused of using cocaine by a confidential informant, by the way tested negative for the drug.

Jeesh. As Loretta remarks in her blog, guess we'll all have to go bald in order to protect ourselves.