932 N.W.2d 283
Minn.2019Background
- Police arranged a controlled buy and arrested Brown on suspicion of selling crack; officers observed behavior suggesting he hid contraband in his rectum and saw a plastic baggie protruding during a strip search.
- Officers obtained a warrant authorizing medical removal of the baggie and took Brown to hospitals; Brown refused to remove it or accept laxatives/enema.
- After one ER doctor declined invasive measures under the first warrant, police secured a more specific second warrant authorizing "any medical/physical means necessary" to remove narcotics from Brown's anal cavity.
- At HCMC Dr. Nystrom offered four options (self‑removal, enema, anoscopy under sedation, or intubation and gastric lavage); Brown remained noncooperative and the doctor sedated, strapped, and performed an anoscopy while two officers observed and retrieved a baggie containing cocaine.
- Brown moved to suppress evidence; the district court and court of appeals upheld the search under Winston v. Lee balancing; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court held the forced, sedated anoscopy in the presence of nonmedical personnel was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search and ordered suppression and a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compelled anoscopy under sedation violated the Fourth Amendment | Brown: forced, sedated anoscopy while strapped and observed by officers is a serious dignitary and bodily‑integrity invasion that outweighs the State's interest | State: warrant obtained; low medical risk, vital evidence, less intrusive alternatives impractical and Brown refused cooperation | Court: anoscopy was an unreasonable search; suppress evidence |
| Role of Winston v. Lee balancing test | Brown: Winston instructs weighing health risk, dignitary intrusion, and community interest; favors suppression here | State: Winston factors support reasonableness given clear indication evidence existed and low risk | Court: applied Winston; second factor (dignitary interests) strongly favors Brown and outweighs State interest |
| Whether availability of less‑intrusive alternatives (natural elimination, enema) affects reasonableness | Brown: practical, less intrusive options existed and were not attempted; their availability reduces State's need for anoscopy | State: courts need not require the least intrusive means; alternatives impractical or would consume resources and risk loss of evidence | Court: consideration of less‑intrusive means is proper; existence of practical natural‑elimination option tipped balance toward unreasonableness |
| Effect of warrant and good‑faith/other procedural protections | State: warrant and probable cause support search; warrant should weigh in favor of reasonableness; good‑faith exception applies | Brown: warrant alone doesn't render bodily intrusion reasonable; judge did not limit scope or assess methods; good‑faith not preserved below | Court: warrant is necessary but not dispositive; good‑faith exception not decided here; warrant did not cure constitutional unreasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (three‑factor balancing for bodily intrusions)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (limits on bodily intrusions; exigency and evidentiary need)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (forcible extraction of stomach contents "shocks the conscience")
- Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (reasonableness not always dependent on least intrusive means)