Spencer v. Roche
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20991
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Arrest for operating without a license; CI claimed Spencer had drugs inserted rectally.
- Officers attempted visual anal exam; Spencer refused; warrant obtained.
- Hospital performed digital rectal exam by Dr. Scola under warrant.
- Dr. Scola ordered a KUB x-ray capturing anal cavity and surrounding areas.
- Spencer did not consent to the KUB x-ray; radiologist reported no contraband.
- District court granted some summary judgments; on appeal, the issue is constitutionality and related state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the x-ray of the anal cavity reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? | Spencer; x-ray intrudes privacy. | Roche/Morris; warrant and medical necessity justify intrusion. | Yes; x-ray reasonable under Fourth Amendment. |
| Did the KUB x-ray exceed the warrant's scope by imaging the stomach? | X-ray violated scope; searched stomach without prob. cause. | Imaging stomach incidental to anal cavity search; within scope. | Within scope; incidental stomach image permissible. |
| Was the search tainted by police subjective intent? | Intent to search stomach taints the x-ray. | Subjective intent irrelevant if objective circumstances justify search. | Subjective motive irrelevant; search justified. |
| Does Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights bar this search? | Article XIV prohibits civilian aid absent warrant expressly authorizing. | Civilians aiding search permissible; order by doctor acceptable. | No Article XIV violation; summary judgment proper. |
| Do Massachusetts invasion-of-privacy or MCRA claims survive without Fourth Amendment violation? | Claims depend on privacy violation beyond Fourth Amendment. | Without constitutional violation, no cognizable state-law claims. | Claims fail; no liability for hospital or city. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (bodily intrusions trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (robust justification for bodily evidence)
- Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (extensive intrusion requires strong justification)
- Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, 590 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2009) (x-ray search upheld with probable cause; less invasive option considered)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view/incidental observations valid from lawful vantage point)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective intent does not defeat probable cause)