Splitting hairs

What if a cop were your hairstylist? I'm talking about the kind of hairstylist who shaves patches of your hair in an attempt to prove you use cocaine.\nIt turns out the police station can double as a little barber shop of horrors.\nThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled that police can shave hair from a suspect's head. They don't need a search warrant. They don't even need probable cause or proof that the hair will serve as evidence in the crime.\nIt seems unconstitutional. Doesn't the Fourth Amendment protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures? Since when is taking someone's hair not a seizure?\nThe case involved a Pennsylvania state trooper, William Coddington, who was suspected of cocaine use. Police received the information from a source proven by the court not to be credible, but Coddington was ordered to submit hair for drug testing. \nHe was left with bare spots on his scalp. Tests for cocaine showed up negative.\nCoddington brought suit against police arguing the hair samples were removed without reasonable suspicion. The court decided the Fourth Amendment is not constitutional Rogaine. It can't protect you from hair loss. \nWhen it comes to civil liberties, there are always exceptions to the rules.\nChildren in public schools can be subjected to random urinalysis. Travelers endure extensive airport security searches. And if you're suspect to cocaine use, Officer Friendly can give you a haircut.\nThe court's ruling is based on the idea that hair is on public display, making it fair game to searching. My left arm is clearly visible to the public, but no one is going to amputate that without a warrant.\nThe court put removing hair into the same category as taking a finger print or a handwriting sample.\nComparing hair to a fingerprint is like comparing your wallet to your shoe size. A shoe sales associate can take your shoe size, but if he takes your wallet, that's a problem.\nThe seizure of blood samples and finger nail scrapings in most cases requires a warrant, why not hair? Hair is physically attached to the body. It's a part of one's person.\nWho are we without our hair?\nI don't anticipate police running rampant with scissors at hand, snipping civilians at every corner. There is a delicate balance between upholding civil liberties and the pursuit of justice. \nProtesting the plucking of a few hairs in the name of the law might seem trivial, but as it stands the police have the legal go-ahead to shave as much hair as they want. \nOur legal system allows suspicion to wield a lot of power. But what is suspicion? The dictionary calls it a "slight indication."\nA slight indication can mean that Don King exits the police station looking more like Vin Diesel.\nLet's say someone tells police that microscopic microfilm containing child pornography is somehow hidden in my coiffure. The next day the police give me the hairstyle of Homer Simpson. \nI would be outraged. As an American citizen I have the right to privacy and most importantly the right to have stylish hair. But the precedent says the police action was constitutional.\nRealistically, if a similar case went to court, the precedent would be questioned. If the police really did shave my head looking for child pornography and I took legal action, the court might rule in my favor. If my case made its way up the chain, the Supreme Court could have different ideas about the Fourth Amendment.\nI agree that law enforcement agencies need the power to enforce the law, but the seizure of something attached to my head should require at least probable cause if not a warrant for removal. The unbridled authority to go to town with the razor is crossing a constitutional line.