Invasive Searches

Smith is suspected of involvement in a recent homicide where a police officer was found bound by his own handcuffs and shot in the head. Smith matches the description of a man seen running away from the scene of the crime. The police quickly pick up Smith and take him to the station for questioning. On the way to the police station, the officers notice Smith slouching in the back seat. The officers suspect Smith of hiding evidence in his underwear. At the station, the officers conduct a search but find nothing. However, the officers notice that Smith is walking awkwardly. Against Smith's objections but with a search warrant, the police transport Smith to a hospital for x-rays of his stomach and pelvic regions. The x-rays reveal that Smith has what appears to be a key concealed in his rectum. The officers take Smith to the emergency room to have a physician remove it. Smith is given the opportunity to remove the key without medical intervention, but fails to retrieve it. Therefore, the physician attempts to remove the key with surgical instruments. This probe search is performed while officers and nurses look on. In addition, the door to the room is left open. When the probe search proves unsuccessful, the doctor orders and enema. Smith, pursuant to a warrant, is given an enema and forced to have his bowel movement in the presence of officers and hospital staff members. The subsequent search reveals a handcuff key. The key is identified as the key to the dead officer's handcuffs.

Smith moves to suppress the evidence.
Was there a probable cause to believe that the x-rays would reveal anything and therefore justify the warrants?
What are the best arguments for suppression? Admission?

Kris Johnson

Emory Law

Answer

See Cameron v. Hendricks, 942 F.Supp. 499 (1996). In Cameron, the plaintiff was an inmate in prison, suspected of concealing contraband. Cameron was transported to the hospital and underwent the exact same procedures as Smith in my problem. I changed the facts a bit to encompass pre-conviction body cavity searches. After conviction, the governmental interests involved will more easily outweigh an individual's privacy interest. For example, in Cameron, the court found that the need to keep contraband out of penal institutions easily outweighed Cameron's privacy interest. But pre-conviction body cavity searches like the one I have formulated above present a much tougher problem and require more justification.