Clifford George v. Thomas Edholm
752 F.3d 1206
9th Cir.2014Background
- George, a pretrial detainee, underwent a strip search that revealed a plastic baggie in his rectum; officers Freeman and Johnson suspected cocaine base and coordinated with hospital staff for medical removal; Dr. Edholm performed invasive procedures (anoscopy, sedation, intubation, and bowel evacuation) without George’s consent; George alleges Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983; district court granted summary judgment to Freeman and Johnson and dismissed Edholm/nurses; on appeal, court remanded for service and admissions issues, and later addressed the hospital treatment claims; the panel reversed in part on Fourth Amendment claim but affirmed as to Fourteenth Amendment claim; Edholm’s liability remains undecided on remand; George is currently imprisoned for cocaine base possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| State action and attribution of Edholm's conduct | Edholm acted as state actor via police coercion | Edholm is a private actor not attributable to state | Edholm’s actions could be attributed to the state through police coercion/inducement |
| Reasonableness of the hospital search under Fourth Amendment | Intrusive procedures without consent violated Fourth Amendment | Procedures were life-saving, justified by emergency | A reasonable jury could find Fourth Amendment violation; not clearly established that conduct was permissible |
| Qualified immunity for Freeman and Johnson on Fourth Amendment claim | Right was clearly established; officers violated it | Qualified immunity should shield if right not clearly established | No qualified immunity; right clearly established; officers liable |
| Fourteenth Amendment claim to refuse medical treatment | Right to refuse treatment violated | Not clearly established; analogous cases distinguishable | Qualified immunity for Freeman and Johnson on Fourteenth Amendment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) (forced emetic in medical search; due process/ Fourth Amendment analog)
- Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (physical body search requires careful balancing factors)
- Cameron v. United States, 538 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1976) (reiterates reasonableness of intrusive searches and absence of warrant)
- Bracamonte v. People, 540 P.2d 624 (Cal. 1975) (state action concerns private medical search; privacy intrusions)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (private action attributed to state when acting as government instrument)
- Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973) (axiomatic that state may not induce private parties to do what state cannot do)
- United States v. Cameron, 538 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1976) (analysis of intrusive searches and necessity of warrants)
- Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 1999) (private medical treatment cases under Fourth Amendment)
- Kennedy v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1989) (catheterization and related invasions as privacy侵)
- Yanez v. Romero, 619 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1980) (intrusive searches and privacy)
- Tribble v. Gardner, 860 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1988) (digital rectal exam as extreme intrusion)
- Husband v. United States, 226 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000) (intrusive searches and privacy)