United States v. Summerfield
| Decision Date | 29 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24325.,24325. |
| Citation | 421 F.2d 684 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Olden SUMMERFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Lester Robert Davis (argued), San Diego, Cal., for appellant.
Joseph A. Milchen (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Edwin L. Miller, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge.*
Appellant appeals from his conviction for smuggling narcotics into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174, on the ground that the narcotics should not have been admitted into evidence at trial as they were the product of a rectal probe which violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The mere fact that a person crosses the border is sufficient to subject him to a border search of his baggage, vehicle or personal effects. Henderson v. United States, 390 F.2d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 1967). To require a person to disrobe and submit to a skin search requires "at least a real suspicion, directed specifically to that person" that he is smuggling contraband across the border. Henderson, supra at 808. Because "the integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value of our society", an intrusion into an individual's body requires a "clear indication" that desired evidence will be found. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 772, 770, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 1836, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). This standard was applied to rectal probes in Rivas v. United States, 368 F.2d 703, 710 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 386 U.S. 945, 87 S.Ct. 980, 17 L.Ed. 2d 875 (1967).
We consider that the customs authorities in this case had a "real suspicion" sufficient to order appellant to strip. They testified that appellant appeared nervous and his eyes were pinpointed not unlike those of one under the influence of narcotics. He had a number of fresh needle marks on both arms. A search of his wallet revealed three rolled-up cotton balls of the kind frequently employed by narcotics users. We also consider that this evidence plus the sight of foreign material in appellant's rectum during the skin search constituted the "clear indication" necessary to require appellant to be taken to a doctor's office and submit to a rectal probe performed by the doctor, after being informed of the evidence.
The physical restraint used according to the doctor who conducted the probe was that necessary to perform a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Braks
...469 U.S. 1088, 105 S.Ct. 597, 83 L.Ed.2d 706 (1984); United States v. Sanders, 663 F.2d 1, 3 (2d Cir.1981); United States v. Summerfield, 421 F.2d 684, 685 (9th Cir.1970) ("physical restraint ... was that necessary to perform a satisfactory examination"); Townsend v. United States, 271 F.2d......
-
People v. Vega
...398 F.2d 503, cert. den. 393 U.S. 1123, 89 S.Ct. 998, 22 L.Ed.2d 130; Blackford v. United States, 9 Cir., 247 F.2d 745; United States v. Summerfield, 9 Cir., 421 F.2d 684; cf. Huguez v. United States, 9 Cir., 406 F.2d 366; Henderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 390 F.2d 805; see, generally, An......
-
U.S. v. Asbury
...States v. Flores, 477 F.2d 608, 609 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied, 414 U.S. 841, 94 S.Ct. 96, 38 L.Ed.2d 77 (1973); United States v. Summerfield, 421 F.2d 684, 685 (9th Cir. 1970). (8) Lack of employment or a claim of self-employment. See United States v. Smith, 557 F.2d 1206, 1209 (5th Cir. 197......
-
People v. Dworkin
...under such circumstances any contraband so discovered may not be used in evidence in a criminal trial. We disagree. United States v. Summerfield, 9 Cir., 421 F.2d 684, is authority to the contrary. There, a border search of a body cavity without probable cause predicated on 'real suspicion'......