People v. Hall
886 N.E.2d 162, 10 N.Y.3d 303, 856 N.Y.S.2d 540 (2008)
Rule of Law:
A visual body cavity inspection of an arrestee is permissible if police have a reasonable suspicion that evidence is concealed within a body cavity. However, the subsequent physical removal of an object seen protruding from a body cavity is a manual body cavity search that requires a warrant based on probable cause, absent exigent circumstances.
Facts:
- Sergeant Burnes, using binoculars from a rooftop, observed a man named Meyers take money from two individuals.
- Meyers then approached defendant Hall and gave him the cash.
- Hall entered a bodega for approximately three minutes, then came out and handed something to Meyers.
- Burnes observed Meyers give two small, white objects that appeared to be crack cocaine to the two individuals.
- Hall and Meyers were subsequently arrested.
- At the police station, an initial search of Hall's clothing revealed no drugs.
- During a subsequent visual body inspection, officers observed a string or piece of plastic hanging from Hall's rectum.
- When Hall refused to remove the object, one officer held him while another pulled on the string, removing a plastic bag containing crack cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- Hall was indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance.
- Hall filed a pretrial motion to suppress the drug evidence in the state trial court (Supreme Court).
- The Supreme Court granted the suppression motion and dismissed the indictment.
- The People (prosecution), as appellant, appealed to the intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, denying the motion to suppress.
- A Judge of the state's highest court (Court of Appeals) granted Hall, now the appellant, leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless, non-exigent, physical removal of an object seen protruding from an arrestee's body cavity during a lawful visual inspection violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
Yes. The warrantless physical removal of an object protruding from an arrestee's body cavity violates the Fourth Amendment in the absence of exigent circumstances. The court distinguishes between a visual body cavity inspection, which is permissible based on reasonable suspicion, and a manual body cavity search, which is far more intrusive. Citing Schmerber v. California, any search that intrudes beyond the body's surface requires a warrant based on probable cause unless an emergency exists. Here, the visual inspection was justified by reasonable suspicion based on the nature of the drug transaction. However, once officers saw the string, their suspicion was elevated to probable cause, but they were still required to obtain a warrant before physically removing it. The court, relying on People v. More, held that removing a protruding object constitutes a manual search subject to Schmerber's warrant requirement. Since there was no evidence of exigent circumstances, such as the imminent destruction of evidence or a medical emergency, the warrantless removal was an unreasonable search.
Concurring - Ciparick, J.
Yes. While agreeing that the drugs must be suppressed, this opinion argues that the majority's standard for visual body cavity inspections is too low. A visual body cavity search is itself a significant intrusion upon human dignity and privacy, analogous to the blood test in Schmerber. Therefore, both visual and manual body cavity searches should be governed by the Schmerber standard, requiring a warrant based on probable cause, not merely reasonable suspicion. The concurrence contends that the majority's reliance on Bell v. Wolfish is misplaced because Wolfish concerned institutional security in detention facilities, a justification not present in a station house search incident to arrest.
Dissenting - Smith, J.
No. The warrantless removal of the contraband was lawful and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This opinion agrees with the majority that the initial visual inspection was valid. However, it argues that Schmerber is inapplicable to the removal because there was no actual intrusion into the defendant's body; the officers merely pulled on a plainly visible string. This act was less of a privacy violation than the lawful visual search that preceded it. The dissent distinguishes People v. More on the facts, viewing that search as far more physically intrusive. Requiring a warrant in this situation is a 'pointless exercise' that unnecessarily hampers police in combating street-level drug dealing.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical three-tiered analytical framework for bodily searches of arrestees in New York, clarifying the distinct constitutional standards for each level of intrusion. By applying the Schmerber warrant requirement to the removal of even a protruding object, the court strongly protects the privacy interest in bodily integrity against physical intrusion by law enforcement. The decision places a significant procedural burden on police, requiring them to secure judicial authorization before seizing evidence in this manner unless a true emergency exists. This precedent reinforces the line between observation and physical seizure, impacting how police handle evidence discovered during highly invasive searches.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Hall (2008)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"