Posted on Apr 16, 2014
Does the current Tattoo Policy violate the 4th Amendment?
25.5K
73
39
3
3
0
Does anyone else see this exercise of Soldiers' bodies being reviewed for ink as a violation of 4th Amendment protections against unlawful search?
Posted in these groups: 
Tattoos
4th Amendment
Tattoos 4th Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
8
8
0
Sir, I think that whether or not I agree, I need to listen to the policy and drive on.
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
The 4th Amendment protects against 'unreasonable searches'...tattoos are visible in the APFU. Seems the Army is simply documenting visible tattoos.
(7)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Cpl Jolley, they are checked prior to enlisting.
This is far more intrusive than anything the Army is trying to do now with current Soldiers. When photos have to be sent to the Recruiting BN CDR for approval and doctors check you head-to-toe for tattoos among other physical anomalies just to join in the first place, and that's NOT a Fourth Amendment violation, a simple visual inspection and documentation of plain-sight tattoos in APFUs isn't even close to a violation.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I don't know about everyone else, but I remember when I entered the Army I was searched for tattoos. In my first unit after AIT we had to again document all tattoos. I don't see this as anything new. Most of these "newer" regs are just getting the Army back to what it used to be before the wars.
(2)
(0)
SFC Cornelius Walsh
I've only been through that once, SFC Defibaugh, but I remember having a tattoo inspection upon arrival at FT Bragg.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
No, it is not an unlawful search. It is direct (plain sight) observation in an authorized duty uniform. It is much more akin to a barracks room, or uniform, inspection - it documents whether or not you are visibly in compliance with standards.
Unlike MSG Cunningham, I am very willing to believe that the SECARMY and CSA could sign off on a policy and still have it turn out to be illegal. If for no other reason that prior Army policies have turned out to be just that. Such things ARE worth discussing as institutional leaders. However, I don't think that is the case in this instance. I don't see it as illegal, immoral, or unethical. It is legitimate.
I have an opinion on whether or not it is a GOOD or WISE policy. However, we are obligated to follow all legitimate orders/policies. We can petition/work for BETTER policies, if we chose, but need to enforce the current standard until/unless changed.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google