Body Cavity Search-The visual or
medical examination of the anal or vaginal opening.
Click on the case titles to link to the full case decision.
Schmerber v.California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)-The court ruled that a state, over the defendant's objections, may draw blood for the purpose of determining intoxication in a drunken driving case without a warrant. The drawing of blood is a minor intrusion with minimal risk and pain. The court further stated:
The delay caused by obtaining a search warrant would result in the destruction of evidence (dissipation of alcohol in the blood).
The withdrawal of blood does not equate to giving a statement and, therefore, is not a Fifth Amendment violation against self incrimination.
The defendant objected to the blood withdrawal on advise of counsel. The procedure, however, did not invoke the defendant's Sixth Amendment right right to counsel. Therefore, the advise of counsel did not have to be considered by the police prior to the procedure.
The blood withdrawal was reasonable because the officer had probable cause, and the procedure took place in a safe and clean environment by a physician in a hospital.
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)-"...assuming that pretrial detainees retain some Fourth Amendment rights upon commitment to a corrections facility, the body-cavity searches do not violate that Amendment. Balancing the significant and legitimate security interests of the institution against the inmates' privacy interests, such searches can be conducted on less than probable cause and are not unreasonable."
US v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985)-The use of a court ordered x-ray of a person based on probable cause that she was smuggling drugs in the alimentary canal was reasonable.
Winston v. Lee, 470 US 753 (1985)-The court has to weigh the privacy and security interests of the defendant against the society's interest in prosecuting criminals. In this case, the defendant was shot while committing an armed robbery. The bullet lodged in his chest. The police wanted the defendant to be ordered into surgery so the bullet could be removed for evidence. The USSC ruled that the severity of the intrusion in this case was unreasonable. The state had substantial additional evidence. The defendant would also have to go under general anesthetic, and may suffer nerve damage and other complications from surgery.