People of Michigan v. Eshay Le-Ann Banks, 352478

Background

Police stopped a vehicle with dark tinted windows and discovered it was reported stolen; driver was arrested and Banks (front passenger) was asked to exit.
A LEIN check on Banks revealed an outstanding bench warrant; officers inspected the vehicle and found a suspected crack pipe and suspected narcotics near the passenger seat.
Banks was arrested, taken to the Lincoln Park Detention Center, and subject to a strip search by a female detention officer.
During the strip search the officer observed white objects protruding from Banks’s labia; Banks removed the items, which proved to be baggies containing crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl.
Banks moved to suppress the evidence and to dismiss, arguing the strip/body-cavity search violated the Fourth Amendment and MCL 764.25a, violated her Fifth Amendment privilege, and that Miranda warnings were required; the trial court suppressed and dismissed the case.
The People appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, concluding the search was a permissible strip search (not a body-cavity search), lawful under the Fourth Amendment and Michigan law, and not barred by the Fifth Amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Fourth Amendment: was the strip/body-cavity search unconstitutional?	Search was reasonable: jail processing and observed vehicle contraband justified search.	Strip/body-cavity search was intrusive and lacked probable cause; underlying arrest was for a misdemeanor so search was unreasonable.	Search did not violate the Fourth Amendment; officers had legitimate institutional interests and reasonable cause to suspect concealed contraband; it was a strip search, not a body-cavity intrusion.
2. Statutory: did the search violate MCL 764.25a (strip-search statute for misdemeanants)?	Strip-search statute permits search when lodged or where reasonable cause to believe person conceals contraband and authorization is obtained.	Statute prohibits strip searches for misdemeanor arrestees absent statutory conditions; those conditions were not met.	Court concluded statutory requirements were satisfied (lodging by court order/warrant and reasonable cause); search was authorized and properly supervised/authorized.
3. If statutory violation, should evidence be excluded?	N/A (People argued search lawful).	Exclusion required for statutory violation.	Court declined to apply exclusionary-rule analysis because it found no statutory violation; noted exclusion for statutory violations is a matter of legislative intent and not automatic.
4. Fifth Amendment: did ordering Banks to remove the baggies compel testimonial evidence?	N/A (People argued act was non-testimonial).	Removing baggies was compelled and violated Fifth Amendment protections.	Held no Fifth Amendment violation: removing physical evidence was non‑testimonial conduct, so the privilege against self-incrimination did not apply.

Key Cases Cited

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (deference to institutional security; pretrial detainees do not retain full range of freedoms)
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2012) (jail search policies to detect contraband deserve deference absent substantial evidence of exaggeration)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (Fifth Amendment protects testimonial communications, not nontestimonial physical evidence)
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2000) (distinguishes compelled testimonial communications from compelled physical acts)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (Fifth Amendment is not concerned with nontestimonial evidence)
Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1988) (to be testimonial, communication must assert or disclose facts)
People v. Hawkins, 468 Mich. 488 (Mich. 2003) (exclusionary rule for statutory violations depends on legislative intent)
People v. Slaughter, 489 Mich. 302 (Mich. 2011) (Michigan Constitution affords protections comparable to the Fourth Amendment)