United States v. Javares Hudson, 86 F.4th 806

Early morning after a shooting, Javares Hudson arrived at a hospital with a gunshot wound; Bloomington police Officer Smith escorted him into an ER room and remained nearby.
Medical staff discovered Hudson was concealing “something plastic” in his mouth and spent nearly 20 minutes coercing/commanding him to spit it out; Hudson eventually produced a device that converts a Glock into a fully automatic weapon.
Throughout the encounter Smith moved between the room and the hallway, answered staff questions (e.g., whether Hudson was detained), told staff he would “stay out of your way,” and later told staff they had acted as police agents; staff at times referenced police presence to encourage Hudson to comply.
Hudson was indicted for possession of a machinegun device; he moved to suppress the device, arguing medical staff acted as government agents and thus the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The district court denied suppression, finding no agency (staff acted for medical reasons and Smith did not induce or control them) and, alternatively, that the emergency-aid exception applied; Hudson pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Hudson failed to meet his burden to show a private-to-government agency relationship and therefore the Fourth Amendment did not govern the staff’s conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether medical staff acted as government agents when they coerced Hudson to spit out the object, converting a private search into a Fourth Amendment search	Hudson: staff acted at least with government acquiescence and for law‑enforcement purposes, so their conduct was a warrantless governmental search	Government: staff acted for independent medical purposes; Smith did not induce, control, or direct staff; knowledge alone is insufficient to establish agency; defendant bears burden to prove agency	Court: No agency relationship. Staff acted to provide medical care and Smith did not manifest control or induce staff. Fourth Amendment did not apply; suppression denied

United States v. Bebris, 4 F.4th 551 (7th Cir. 2021) (identifies two critical factors for private‑actor government‑agent analysis)
United States v. Crowley, 285 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2002) (mere police presence or witnessing a private search does not convert it to government action)
United States v. Shahid, 117 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 1997) (agency requires governmental knowledge plus manifestation of consent and ability to control)
United States v. Koenig, 856 F.2d 843 (7th Cir. 1988) (mere knowledge of private conduct insufficient without consent/control)
United States v. Ginglen, 467 F.3d 1071 (7th Cir. 2006) (useful criteria include request for action and governmental reward)
United States v. Chukwubike, 956 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1992) (medical staff acting on their own initiative not governmental agents despite some law‑enforcement assistance)
United States v. Leffall, 82 F.3d 343 (10th Cir. 1996) (no agency where government participation was minimal)
United States v. Martin, 195 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 1999) (agency determination is a legal question applying law to facts)