MAJ Philip Crabtree 104246 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Does anyone else see this exercise of Soldiers' bodies being reviewed for ink as a violation of 4th Amendment protections against unlawful search? 2014-04-16T23:26:26-04:00 MAJ Philip Crabtree 104246

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Does anyone else see this exercise of Soldiers' bodies being reviewed for ink as a violation of 4th Amendment protections against unlawful search?

2014-04-16T23:26:26-04:00 2014-04-16T23:26:26-04:00 SGM Matthew Quick 104269

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The 4th Amendment protects against &#39;unreasonable searches&#39;...tattoos are visible in the APFU. &amp;nbsp;Seems the Army is simply documenting visible tattoos.

2014-04-16T23:48:56-04:00 2014-04-16T23:48:56-04:00 SSG William Sutter 104322

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Absolutly not, I see it as ensuring the good order and discipline being enforced. A tat is a persons one and true story of themselves. Besides, as Soldiers we give up some of our American rights to maintain the American way of life. We swore to abide by regulations and if it is regulation to ensure standards are met then that is what we need to do.

2014-04-17T05:11:13-04:00 2014-04-17T05:11:13-04:00 SFC Michael Hasbun 104356

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Is it a "search" when you are wearing a short sleeve shirt or shorts and the tattoos are publicly displayed for all to see? I'm not inclined to think so. That's just observation.

2014-04-17T07:54:07-04:00 2014-04-17T07:54:07-04:00 SGT Ben Keen 104359

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No, the inspections are supposed to be done while the service member is wearing their PT shorts and short sleeve search.  There is no "search".  If someone has their arms and or legs covered then the tattoos are visible in that uniform; all the command team is supposed to do is record what tattoos are seen at that point.  And let's keep in mind, recording what body marks a service member has is nothing new.  You are supposed to label your tattoos as identifiable body marks during your SRP process prior to deployment.

2014-04-17T08:00:12-04:00 2014-04-17T08:00:12-04:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 104364

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>1st not only visible Tattoos are being documented. Its called THEY can add to but not take away.... <br />2nd, I dont believe that the new tattoo policy the way its written is a violation of the 4th amendment. Now if your leadership is using the "add to but cannot take away" policy then we might have an issue.

2014-04-17T08:05:49-04:00 2014-04-17T08:05:49-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 104398

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Sir, I think that whether or not I agree, I need to listen to the policy and drive on.

2014-04-17T09:07:10-04:00 2014-04-17T09:07:10-04:00 SFC Stephen P. 104414

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The 4th amendment protects the people from the government, not the government from the government.<br>

2014-04-17T09:44:09-04:00 2014-04-17T09:44:09-04:00 COL Vincent Stoneking 104416

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.  </div><div><br></div>

2014-04-17T09:49:33-04:00 2014-04-17T09:49:33-04:00 MSG Private RallyPoint Member 104441

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><p>I'm going to have to say no. The Army is not an equal oppourtunity employer, if they were we have all kinds of "fun" people in it. They dictate a standard and as soldiers if we want to be in in the Army then we need to follow it, plain and simple. We all knew when we signed the dotted line that restrictions were going to be placed on us and that if things changed we would have to go with it.</p><p> </p><p>Am I a fan of some of the restrictions that have been put on some people that were in compliance before the change (enlisted with sleeve tattoo cannot become officers), not really. But again, the standard has been changed, they aren't getting kicked out, so folks are going to have to live with it.</p><p> </p><p>At this point we should be grateful that our tattoo standards are not that of the USMC. The USMC tattoo policy was one of my greatest recruiters....I had one gentlemen that got turned down by the USMC because he had his family tree tattooed to his rib cage and they called it excessive and turned him away, so I put him in. </p>

2014-04-17T10:29:45-04:00 2014-04-17T10:29:45-04:00 CW2 Joseph Evans 104610

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>When you signed on the dotted line as an executor of the will of the people as defined by the orders of those they elect into office, you ceded the rights afforded the average citizen as a Defender of the Republic. We are granted greater latitude in some areas as a result but are expected to maintain a higher standard of conduct. <div>As a volunteer, you have no rights with respect to policies that do not result in criminal prosecution. Since the tattoo policy is only administrative in purpose and result, you are screwed. Deal with it.</div>

2014-04-17T15:36:10-04:00 2014-04-17T15:36:10-04:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 104911

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This is all just ridiculous. The Army has a policy so follow it. If you don't like it get out. The 4th has nothing anywhere close to this situation. You have the right to refuse the order of letting the commander from documenting your tattoos, and by doing so you make room for Soldiers who don't try to fight the system. For all you who keep trying to find reasons not to follow the regulations, the Army is downsizing fell free to show yourself the door. This is just another result of the everyone gets a trophy generation.

2014-04-17T22:51:05-04:00 2014-04-17T22:51:05-04:00 CW3 Private RallyPoint Member 104914

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Those in compliance with the previous regulation are grandfathered, and it specifically states that the information uploaded into SM's file will not be used during promotion boards. <div><br></div><div>We as US military SM's have the same freedoms and rights, we just have limits. We raised our right hand to defend the constitution, not to complain about the rules we must follow, as superfluous as some of them might be. </div><div><br></div><div>Not saying I agree with the new regulation, because personally I don't, but it is what it is. I do feel that senior leaders, however, should protect the sanctity of our military personnel by retaining only the best. Performance, and appearance in ASU/ACU should be all that matter. That's just my opinion (my 1st Amendment right)... again, it is what it is. </div><div>Charlie-Mike!!!</div>

2014-04-17T22:52:25-04:00 2014-04-17T22:52:25-04:00 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member 105063

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Sir, just because the Army develops a bad idea that many of us disagree with doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.  4th Amendment issues aren't raised unless there's an arrest or seizure, which isn't the case with the new policy.  There are also some classic exceptions to warrant-less searches; incident to arrest, exigent circumstances, consent, and plain view.  If this were a 4th Amendment issue, it appears that the plain view exception would apply.  Is the new policy silly and misdirected?  Absolutely.  Is it unconstitutional?  No.<br>

2014-04-18T02:01:19-04:00 2014-04-18T02:01:19-04:00 CW2 Private RallyPoint Member 105065

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>&lt;p&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#000000&quot; size=&quot;3&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;<br /><br />&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#000000&quot; size=&quot;3&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;You would think that somewhere on Rallypoint, there would be an actual<br />Lawyer that could provide some insight.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#000000&quot; size=&quot;3&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;<br /><br />&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#000000&quot; size=&quot;3&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;To be sure, any tattoos visible in Summer PTs would not fall into this category,<br />however I have no idea about the normally hidden Tattoos. I just don&#39;t envy the<br />Leadership, and Service members that will be looking at tattoos in<br />&quot;sensitive&quot; areas for compliance with the Regulation...&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#000000&quot; size=&quot;3&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;<br /><br />&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2014-04-18T02:21:35-04:00 2014-04-18T02:21:35-04:00 PO2 Rocky Kleeger 105156

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As I understand it, once you volunteer you fall under the UCMJ while supporting and defending the Constitution.  So, the point is moot

2014-04-18T08:49:58-04:00 2014-04-18T08:49:58-04:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 105405

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><p>No, this is not a violation of 4th Ammendment Rights.  The 4th Ammendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.  As several have stated above, this is only documenting tattoo's that are VISIBLE in the summer PT Uniform.  The Army has ALWAYS had a standard.  If you look at the 2003 version of the policy, tattoo's on the head, face, and neck were prohibited 11 years ago- the Army was just giving waivers for this due to increasing in strength.  And TRUST me, tattoo's were not the only things you were getting waivers for back then, that you'd not get a waiver for now.  However, since it's brought up, I'm assuming everyone has read the sign at the main gate which explains "Implied Consent"?  This has been there since before I joined the first time in 1998.  If you enter post you are consenting to being searched AND having your vehicle searched.</p><p> </p><p>The US Army is an organization.  As an organization, as with most organizations, it has rules.  When a Soldier signs on the line stating that they wish to join, they are agreeing to those rules- both current and future.  This is the reason that if they have more than 4 visible tattoo's, it's just being documented, and they can't get more that are visible.  They made a choice to join, the Army understands that, and is now saying they want to limit it in order to create a more professional appearance.  So, once again, Soldiers have a choice- get out and get more visible tattoo's or stay in and don't.  If a Soldier has visible hand, neck, face tattoo's and were given a waiver to come in-  again they have a choice:  They can have them removed, or they can get out.  I personally know an NCO that was granted a waiver for neck tattoo's to enter, and just prior to the new AR being put out, had already scheduled his first tattoo removal appointment.  He's a good NCO, he's leading by example, and stating thru his actions, "I WANT to be an NCO in the US Army, I want to be a leader."</p><p> </p><p> </p>

2014-04-18T14:55:06-04:00 2014-04-18T14:55:06-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 105688

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I don't think it is a violation of the 4th amendment, but I do think it is violation of expression. In saying this, I mean that why or how are we less professional for having a tattoo on our leg, or on our forearm. I do think that tattoos on the neck are unprofessional, to a point.  But really in this day in age how many employers are going to say "Oh you have a tattoo on your arm, we are not going to hire you."?<br>

2014-04-18T23:00:34-04:00 2014-04-18T23:00:34-04:00 CW3 Private RallyPoint Member 114788

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>16,000 signatures just prompted a look into the recently changed regulation on grooming standards. What the signatures pertained to doesn't matter, what does is the fact that people keep going on about this, but aren't doing anything about it. I'm sure there are more than 16,000 service members with tattoos... just my two cents.

2014-04-29T19:25:10-04:00 2014-04-29T19:25:10-04:00 MSG Private RallyPoint Member 114957

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This may not be the answer everyone is looking for, but here goes anyway: remember when the tattoo policy was like this prior to the need for more soldiers? I don't, but either way it is now again. In the Army, we had it way more lax than the other branches... We're pretty much back on par. I don't like it as much as the next, but tough cookies!

2014-04-29T22:04:05-04:00 2014-04-29T22:04:05-04:00 SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member 121263

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Sir, <br /><br />No. It is not. We are Soldiers, and we willingly gave up most of our rights for the privilege to serve. We read our enlistment contracts, knowing that we will follow the orders given to those above us, and to following the regulations. <br /><br />As much as I do not AGREE with the policy, I fully understand the need for it. The Army has a "down and dirty, git-r-done" image, and someone wanted to clean it up. It just so happens to fall when we are downsizing. Sadly. <br /><br />Just my thoughts, Sir. Thank you.

2014-05-07T20:29:16-04:00 2014-05-07T20:29:16-04:00 SPC Brian Jones 121267

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Does it matter? No "real world" job would be prosecuted if they held the same requirements. And how would it be a search if the tattoos were openly visible as that would fall under plain view and so not an unlawful search or seizure. If the powers that be really wanted to they could always get a judge to sign off on a warrant for the search and seizure of their person. And this could include through medical exams, showers, PT or anything you were to do on post.

2014-05-07T20:39:12-04:00 2014-05-07T20:39:12-04:00 CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. 121373

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Sir, I think the case could be made, but it will likely be changed again before it got through the Military Court of Appeals.<br /><br />These situations are increasing. I've often wondered if the requirement for people to report whether or not they have health insurance violates the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when the immediate outcome is a fine. The fine could also violate an individual's right to due process.

2014-05-07T22:28:00-04:00 2014-05-07T22:28:00-04:00 CW3 Private RallyPoint Member 515160

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I see it that way. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks.

2015-03-06T08:15:09-05:00 2015-03-06T08:15:09-05:00 1stSgt Eugene Harless 1382930

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As a member of the military you find yourself butt naked/ partially clothed in front of other service members all the time. Or maybe I just was in some crazy units.

2016-03-16T01:26:05-04:00 2016-03-16T01:26:05-04:00 Duane Weimerskirch 1383068

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>i dont think tattoos should matter unless they are gang tattoos , a tattoo doesn't determine if a soldier is fit to fight. i say let the tattoo thing go. if they have them on their face they can easily be identified by enemy combatants or informants . just my opinion.

2016-03-16T04:50:24-04:00 2016-03-16T04:50:24-04:00 SPC Tom DeSmet 2961467

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>We support and defend the Constitution. No one in the military necessarily has full rights under such. See UCMJ.

2017-10-01T00:24:18-04:00 2017-10-01T00:24:18-04:00 2014-04-16T23:26:26-04:00