CA1: SW for body cavity search permitted x-ray under Schmerber

A search warrant for a body cavity search for heroin and cocaine allegedly secreted in the body permitted an x-ray when a digital search was unavailing. On a balancing of interests, this search was reasonable under Schmerber. Spencer v. Roche, 11-1146 (1st Cir. October 18, 2011):

It is a piece of constitutional bedrock that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their bodies. Thus, a physical intrusion below the skin constitutes a search within the purview of the Fourth Amendment. See Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616-17 (1989). Because individuals possess a strong interest in their bodily integrity, a nonconsensual intrusion into the body requires a particularly robust justification. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767-68, 772 (1966).

Withal, not every intrusion into an individual’s bodily integrity offends the Fourth Amendment. An inquiring court must weigh the nature of the particular intrusion against the totality of the circumstances surrounding it to determine the reasonableness of the search. See Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760 (1985).

. . .

In general, compelled x-rays have been viewed favorably by courts, given an appropriately supported level of suspicion. For example, courts have approved x-ray searches performed at border crossings when customs officials had reasonable suspicion that drugs were being smuggled internally. …

Similarly, the Second Circuit has upheld an x-ray search of a criminal defendant who had set off a metal detector on his way to hear the jury’s verdict. … And this court has described an x-ray as a “much simpler, less invasive procedure” than surgery. …

We hold today that the x-ray search of the appellant’s anal cavity passed muster under the Fourth Amendment. …

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.