People v. Jarvis
2016 IL App (2d) 141231
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On August 1–2, 2013, police obtained and executed a warrant authorizing a search of Ronald Jarvis, his car, and seizure of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia after a confidential informant purchased drugs from Jarvis in his car.
- At the traffic stop officers showed Jarvis the warrant, handcuffed him, patted him down, found $90, then transported him to the station.
- At the station two male officers covered cameras and a window, ordered Jarvis to remove pants and underwear, and conducted a visual strip search (squat-and-cough) without physical intrusion.
- A piece of toilet paper fell from between Jarvis’s buttocks containing a baggie of a controlled substance.
- Jarvis moved to suppress the drugs as obtained by an unlawful strip search; the trial court granted suppression. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a search warrant authorizing a search of a person for drugs permits a strip search (visual exposure of buttocks) | Warrant to search person for controlled substances reasonably includes searching body locations only revealed by a strip search | Warrant and supporting documents did not expressly authorize a strip search; strip search exceeded warrant scope and violated federal and state constitutional protections | The strip search was within the scope of a warrant to search the person for drugs and did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Illinois search-and-seizure clause |
| Whether the state constitution or privacy clause affords greater protection than the Fourth Amendment here | Search-and-seizure clause tracks federal Fourth Amendment; no state tradition supports greater protection | Buttocks/genitals implicate heightened privacy requiring more than a warrant | No independent state-constitutional ground to require more than a warrant; probable-cause warrant suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (preference for judicial warrants over warrantless searches)
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (particularity requirement for warrants)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (particularity limits on scope of warrant)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (distinction between visual inspection and body-cavity searches)
- Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (physical intrusion/body search principles)
- People v. McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d 109 (Illinois discussion of warrant particularity)
- In re May 1991 Will County Grand Jury, 152 Ill. 2d 381 (privacy of pubic area but may be overcome by probable cause)
- People v. Nesbitt, 405 Ill. App. 3d 823 (privacy clause applied to bank records; need for probable cause and warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 69 A.3d 618 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (strip search within scope of warrant to search person for drugs)
- State v. Hampton, 60 P.3d 95 (Wash. Ct. App.) (search of person for drugs includes strip search)
- State v. Johnson, 547 S.E.2d 445 (N.C. Ct. App.) (upholding strip search that included visual exam of anus under a warrant)