A 68 year old inmate with a history of prostate problems was subjected to a forced catheterization for a random drug test, and it was unreasonable. Levine v. Roebuck, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77073 (W.D. Mo. October 16, 2007):<\/p>\n
The Court holds that involuntary catheterization of a 68-year-old man with a history of prostate problems, as part of a random drug screening and without suspicion, is unreasonable. This invasive procedure is particularly unreasonable–as opposed to taking hair, blood, sweat or saliva samples–because, unlike those other collection methods, catheterization is a gross personal indignity to the prisoner. See Yanez<\/em>, 619 F.2d at 855. Youngs could have chosen several other less intrusive options, including keeping LeVine in a room until he was able to urinate; Youngs was surely aware of these alternatives as they were outlined in the prison’s own drug testing policy. As a result, prison officials like Youngs, when considering the use of invasive procedures, and before deciding which action to ultimately take, should look at the readily available alternatives and their respective levels of intrusiveness in determining the constitutionally acceptable range of reasonableness. See Bell<\/em><\/a>, 441 U.S. at 559 (outlining test for reasonableness, stating “[c]ourts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted”); cf. Harlow v. Fitzgerald<\/em>, 457 U.S. 800, 819, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982) (in qualified immunity context, “[w]hen an official could be expected to know that certain conduct would violate statutory or constitutional rights, he should be made to hesitate”). Therefore, because Youngs did not conduct the search in a reasonable manner, she violated LeVine’s Fourth Amendment rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading