Arrow Airways, Inc. v. Dade County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the grand jury’s directive that [the defendant] submit his feet and shoes for ink printing did not constitute a ‘search’ of his No. 09-5054 United States v. Moore Page 24 person”
• admitting testimony of an expert who compared impressions inside the shoes found at site of attempted arson with those inside the shoes seized from defendants’ residences, and with their inked footprints
• finding no implied bias where the juror’s husband knew a government witness
• “[I]t is not unusual to expose one’s feet to the public. . . . Nor does the forced production of one’s feet and shoes involve the type of ‘humiliating experience’ at issue in Terry”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).