 Terry v. Ohio
(Stop-and-Frisk) (1968)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous.”
 United States v. Robinson
(Search incident to arrest) (1973)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."
 Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association
(Testing blood, urine, breath of public employees in safety positions) (1989)
Recognizing the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse by railroad employees, the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) implemented regulations requiring mandatory blood and urine tests of employees involved in certain train accidents. Other FRA rules allowed railroads to administer breath and urine tests to employees who violate certain safety rules. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government's interest in assuring safety on the nation's railroads constituted a "special need" which justified a departure from standard warrant and probable-cause requirements in searches.

Veronica School District v. Acton (Drug testing student athletes) (1995)
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the random drug testing of high school athletes through urinalysis does not violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. The reasonableness of a search is judged by "balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." High school athletes, who are under state supervision during school hours, are generally subject to greater control than over free adults. The state has a strong interest in protecting minors, and intrusion is minimal, the Court said.
 Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of
Pottawatomie County v. Earls, et al.
(Drug testing students) (2002)
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ability of schools to rid their campuses of illegal drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy. The decision allows schools to test students who participate in any competitive after-school programs for drug use, even without any particular suspicion of wrongdoing.

 Safford Unified School District v. Redding
(Strip searching students)
(2006)
In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a strip search of a middle schooler violated the Fourth Amendment where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs the girl allegedly had in her possession (Ibuprofen) presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear. Police had received a report that the student had given a classmate four prescription-strength 400 mg ibuprofen and a 200 mg over-the-counter naproxen. No drugs were found in the student’s possession.
 Florence v. County of Burlington
(Strip searching arrestees) (2012)
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a local law-enforcement policy that required officials to strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband. “Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the strip searches the majority allowed were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when there was good reason to do so.
 *United States v. Jones
(Use of GPS tracking technology) (2012)
In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that law enforcement personnel committed a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment rights when they physically attached a
GPS devise to the vehicle of a drug suspect and used it to electronically monitor the vehicle’s movements around the clock for more than a month. The case left open the question of whether purely electronic monitoring of a suspect’s movements would be considered a search. Under the rational of the ruling, it is likely a physical attachment of a tracking device to the body or clothing of a person would likewise be found constitute a
“search” for Fourth Amendment purposes.
 Missouri v. McNeely
(Warrantless drawing of blood in DWI) (2013)
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in drunk-driving investigations, the fact that alcohol in the bloodstream dissipates relatively quickly, making it difficult to determine from a test result whether a person driving was drunk unless the test is conducted immediately, does not constitute an exigency (i.e. an emergency situation excusing the warrant requirement) in every case. The case involved a suspected drunk driver who refused to take a breath test or blood test; the patrolman who stopped took him to a hospital, and without getting a warrant, ordered hospital technicians to draw blood from the handcuffed suspect. Justice Sottomayor observed: “[T]hough a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests.”

Maryland v. King (Taking an arrestee’s DNA) (2013)
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found police do not violate the Fourth
Amendment by taking DNA samples from all people arrested in connection with serious

crimes and depositing them in a national DNA database. "Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony
Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority. The ruling backed a Maryland law allowing DNA swabbing of people arrested for serious crimes.
Although not strictly “body” cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided a number of dog-sniff cases. To what degree is our “scent” ours?
 Florida v. Jardines
(2013) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may not use drug dogs to sniff outside a suspect's home without a warrant.
 Illinois v. Caballes
(2005) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police do not need reasonable suspicion to use drug dogs to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop.
 United States v. Place (1983)
Warrantless dog sniffs at airports upheld. The
"exposure of ... luggage, ... located in a public place, to a trained canine" is not a
Fourth Amendment "search," the U.S. Supreme Court said.