Home | facebook

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 case involves alimentary canal smuggling at the border. When a woman was contacted and questioned after arriving on an international flight, the agents developed reasonable suspicion she was smuggling drugs in a body cavity. They gave her a choice of an x-ray or bowl movement. She would not cooperate on either one. 16 hrs later the agents got a court order. She was examined and 88 cocaine filled balloons were found during a rectal exam.

Held: The detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal; here, the facts, and their rational inferences, known to the customs officials clearly supported a reasonable suspicion that respondent was an alimentary canal smuggler. The "reasonable suspicion" standard effects a needed balance between private and public interests when law enforcement officials must make a limited intrusion on less than probable cause. It thus fits well into situations involving alimentary canal smuggling at the border: this type of smuggling gives no external signs, and inspectors will rarely possess probable cause to arrest or search, yet governmental interests in stopping smuggling at the border are high.

Under the circumstances, respondent's detention, while long, uncomfortable, and humiliating, was not unreasonably long. Alimentary canal smuggling cannot be detected in the amount of time in which other illegal activity may be investigated through brief stops. When respondent refused an x-ray as an alternative to simply awaiting her bowel movement, the customs inspectors were left with only two practical alternatives: detain her for such time as necessary to confirm their suspicions or turn her loose into the interior of the country carrying the reasonably suspected contraband drugs. Moreover, both the length of respondent's detention and its discomfort resulted solely from the method that she chose to smuggle illicit drugs into this country. And in the presence of an articulable suspicion of alimentary canal smuggling, the customs officials were not required by the Fourth Amendment to pass respondent and her cocaine-filled balloons into the interior.

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.

Florence v. Burlington, ___ US No. 10–945 (2012)-The court held that a prisoner in jail on a minor offense can be strip searched if the person is going into general population.