{"id":3675,"date":"2010-03-20T20:10:35","date_gmt":"2009-12-25T18:51:08","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-12-25T09:03:29","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3675","title":{"rendered":"CA1: Forced surgery of inmate to retrieve smuggled cell phone was unreasonable search"},"content":{"rendered":"

Forced surgery to find a cell phone in plaintiff prison inmate’s rectum was shown to be an unreasonable search. It was not just a “medical procedure.” Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo<\/a>, 590 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2009):<\/p>\n

1. Were the Procedures Performed at the Medical Center “Searches” Within the Scope of the Fourth Amendment?<\/em><\/p>\n

To determine whether the rectal examinations and the exploratory surgery implicated the Fourth Amendment, we must first determine whether they constituted searches for evidence or legitimate medical procedures. As will be discussed further below, it is impossible to reconcile the allegations in the complaint with the district court’s conclusion that these procedures were “medical decisions made exclusively by physicians.” According to the complaint, the procedures were carried out at the insistence of correctional officials for the purpose of finding a cell phone in plaintiff’s rectum.<\/p>\n

The procedures were the direct culmination of a series of searches that began when a metal detector used to scan plaintiff’s person gave a positive reading. The complaint describes the surgery as “medically unnecessary,” and explains circumstances supporting that claim, namely that plaintiff had two normal bowel movements before the searches were conducted, that Dr. Roe III examined him upon arrival at the hospital and found him to be asymptomatic, and that several lab tests ordered by Dr. Roe III were found to be “within normal limits.” Because the procedures described in the complaint were searches for evidence, they are properly analyzed under the framework of the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

2. Did the Searches Violate the Fourth Amendment?<\/em><\/p>\n

“The applicability of the Fourth Amendment turns on whether ‘the person invoking its protection can claim a justifiable, a reasonable, or a legitimate expectation of privacy’ that has been invaded by government action.'” Hudson v. Palmer<\/a>, 468 U.S. 517, 525 (1984) (quoting Smith v. Maryland<\/a>, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979) (other quotation marks omitted)). In the prison context, prisoners are “accorded those rights not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration.” Id. at 523. We have recognized that a limited right of bodily privacy against searches is not incompatible with incarceration. Cookish v. Powell, 945 F.2d 441, 446 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (“[S]ome Fourth Amendment protection [i]s available to inmates as to their persons.”). A reviewing court must “‘balanc[e] the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.'” Id. (quoting Bell v. Wolfish<\/a>, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979)). Mindful of this principle, we analyze the rectal exams and the surgery separately, concluding that the rectal exams did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, but the surgery did.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}