While defendant was arrested 20-30′ from motel room door, protective sweep of room was permitted because officers suspected armed confederates inside

Arrest after response to a tip and questioning outside a motel room led police to arrest the defendant for manufacturing meth inside. Although the arrest was 20′ away from the motel room, and a search incident of the motel room was not possible, officers could legally conduct a protective sweep of the motel room to look for unknown confederates, and the resulting plain view was valid. United States v. Atchley, 474 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. January 23, 2007):

Although Atchley and the police were approximately 20-30 feet outside the room, we hold that the protective sweep was warranted. The facts in this case are somewhat similar to those in United States v. Biggs, 70 F.3d 913 (1995), where we held that a protective sweep of a motel room 20-75 feet from the arrest site was constitutional. We found that there were several articulable facts which would lead a reasonable officer to believe that another person was hiding inside the motel room. Id. at 916. For example, the officers had information that another person would be meeting the defendant at the motel room, but had not observed anyone enter and therefore did not know if that person was already inside the room. Further, the room’s door was open so if anyone was inside, he would have a clear view of the arrest site. Finally, the officers knew that the defendant had been arrested twice before for possession of a firearm, which justified them accompanying him back into the room so he could retrieve clothing and shoes. Id. at 916. In this case, the arrest site was a similar distance from the hotel room. Two of Atchley’s companions escaped (one was later apprehended), and because officers were distracted during the scuffle, they could not be sure whether anyone had reentered the room. Also similarly, the door of the room was open. And in fact, while still outside, officers were able to observe a handgun (later determined to be loaded) lying on the bed in plain view. These factors, combined with the suspects’ conduct, reasonably led officers to believe that they might be in danger, and thus the protective sweep was justified.

Pro se complaint from inmate in a mental health institution alleged that forced blood draws were a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court found the blood draws consistent with the special needs exception based on plaintiff’s own allegations. Makas v. Miraglia, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4400 (S.D. N.Y. January 23, 2007):

By comparison, courts have found the special needs exception applicable in a hospital setting when there is no evidence that the medical tests are intended to serve a law enforcement purpose. For example, in Anthony v. City of New York, 339 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2003), the Second Circuit found that mandatory blood and urine tests undertaken by a state hospital to facilitate diagnosis, treatment, and patient health were constitutionally permissible. In that case, the police detained Anthony and transported her to a state psychiatric hospital. Id. at 133-34. After a psychiatric examination at the hospital, which resulted in a finding that Anthony was “fearful, anxious, delusional, and paranoid,” hospital staff drew blood and collected a urine sample from her before providing her with anti-psychotic medication. Id. at 134. Rejecting Anthony’s Section 1983 claim, Judge Sotomayor observed that, even though the hospital examined Anthony’s blood and urine in order to determine whether she was using drugs or had a physiological imbalance, there was no law enforcement purpose behind the tests. Id. at 142. The tests in Anthony thus fell within the “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement because they were undertaken to help the hospital treat Anthony, rather than to incriminate or otherwise harm her. Id. at 142; see also Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (warrantless collection of blood samples from convicted sex offenders in prisons approved under the “special needs” exception because significant governmental interest in maintaining institutional security, public safety, and order outweighed minimal intrusions on individual privacy).

The applicability of the special needs exception therefore turns on the principal use for which the blood tests in this case were intended. If the purpose was to foster institutional or inmate health or safety, the tests pass constitutional muster. On the other hand, if the purpose was to bolster a criminal prosecution, a warrant would be required before obtaining a sample.

In his papers, Makas concedes that the purpose of many of his blood tests was to detect syphilis and hepatitis, to monitor his cholesterol and thyroid levels, and to check his liver function. (See Compl. 23-24, Ex. A). Such testing plainly was undertaken to ensure that Makas remained healthy while at Mid-Hudson and did not infect others, rather than to further a law enforcement purpose. There consequently was no need for the Defendants to secure a warrant or court order before drawing Makas’ blood.