In George v. Edholm, published May 28, 2014, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part summary judgment granted to two police officers. While the plaintiff arrestee was being strip-searched, he allegedly faked a seizure and inserted a baggie of cocaine base into his rectum. Paramedics took the arrestee to a hospital, where a doctor forceably removed the baggie with forceps, sedated the arrestee, and administered laxative to him. The experience allegedly caused him pain and bleeding. There was conflicting evidence on whether the officers told the doctor that the plaintiff had swallowed cocaine, and on the danger of the baggie breaking. The plaintiff sued the officers under the 4th Amendment, for an unreasonable seizure, and under the 14th Amendment, for violating his due process right to refuse medical treatment.
The 9th Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the 4th amendment cause of action. Because there was evidence the doctor acted at the request of police and with their assistance, there was an issue of fact on whether the doctor's actions could be imputed to the police officers for 42 U.S.C. section 1983 purposes. There were also triable issues of fact over whether the search was unreasonable in light of its highly intrusive nature, the conflicting evidence on whether the baggie would rupture, the possibility of obtaining the evidence by simply monitoring bowel movements, and the conflicting evidence of whether the officers gave false information to the hospital. In light of the clearly-established law governing intrusive bodily examinations, the officers were not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The officers were, however, entitled to summary adjudication of the 14th Amendment cause of action. Because there was no established law finding a 14th Amendment violation under circumstances like those here. the officers' conduct did not violate clearly-established rights.
Comments