NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-12630

COMMONWEALTH vs. STANLEY JEANNIS.

Suffolk. February 5, 2019. - May 24, 2019.

Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, 

& Kafker, JJ.

Controlled Substances. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. 

Search and Seizure, Probable cause, Bodily intrusion, Body 

examination. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, 

Probable cause. Probable Cause.

Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 

Department on June 11, 2015.

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Robert 

N. Tochka, J., and the cases were tried before Raffi N. 

Yessayan, J.

After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial 

Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.

Ian MacLean, Assistant District Attorney, for the 

Commonwealth.

Jane Larmon White for the defendant.

GANTS, C.J. During a lawful strip search of the defendant 

following his arrest, police officers observed a plastic bag 
2

protruding from the cleft between his buttocks and caused him to 

remove it; it was revealed to contain individually wrapped 

plastic bags of both heroin and cocaine. The issue presented in 

this case is whether the removal of the plastic bag was within 

the scope of the strip search, which requires only probable 

cause, or whether the officers conducted a manual body cavity 

search of the defendant's rectum, which requires the issuance by 

a judge of a search warrant based on "a strong showing of 

particularized need supported by a high degree of probable 

cause." Rodriques v. Furtado, 410 Mass. 878, 888 (1991). We 

conclude that, under the circumstances here, the removal of the 

plastic bag was within the scope of the strip search and that 

the actions taken by the police were reasonable within the 

bounds of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 

and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. We 

therefore affirm the denial of the defendant's motion to 

suppress the drug evidence. We also affirm his convictions.

Background. We summarize the facts as found by the judge 

who heard the defendant's motion to suppress, supplemented by 

uncontradicted witness testimony that the judge implicitly 

credited. See Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell, 472 Mass. 429, 431 

(2015).

On April 7, 2015, members of a Federal Bureau of 

Investigation task force arrested the defendant in a hotel room
3

in Revere on outstanding warrants. After the defendant was 

arrested, Lieutenant David Callahan of the Revere police 

department arrived at the hotel and brought the defendant to the 

Revere police station for booking. At the station, the 

defendant complained to Callahan that he had swallowed 

"fifties," which Callahan understood to mean small bags worth 

approximately fifty dollars of heroin or cocaine, and that he 

did not feel well. Callahan did not believe that the defendant 

was under the influence of narcotics and thought that he was 

feigning illness, but nonetheless followed established protocol 

and requested medical assistance.

Callahan observed the defendant as he sat on a bench during 

the booking procedure, and noticed that the defendant "sat 

oddly, leaning to one side." When the defendant told Callahan 

he might vomit, Callahan, accompanied by Revere police Officer 

Joseph Singer, escorted the defendant to a nearby cell with a 

sink and toilet, which was out of sight from other prisoners and 

not clearly visible to booking officers. As the defendant --

who was approximately six feet, two inches tall and weighed 

approximately 275 pounds at the time of the arrest -- walked to 

the holding cell, Callahan observed that he was not walking 

normally. Even though the defendant was not restrained in 

shackles or handcuffs, his movement was slow, rigid, and tense. 

Callahan saw the defendant "clenching his buttocks area," and 
4

believed that the defendant might have "something secreted in 

his lower half," which Callahan recognized could pose a safety 

risk to the defendant, the police officers, and other prisoners.

Once inside the holding cell, Callahan ordered the 

defendant to remove his clothing. The defendant removed his 

shirt, pants, and socks, but became argumentative when he was 

asked to remove his underwear. While still wearing his 

underwear, he continued to clench his buttocks area and 

attempted to shield his backside from the view of Callahan and 

Singer. Concerned that he was taking a "fighting stance" or 

possibly hiding a weapon, the officers handcuffed one of the 

defendant's arms, and Singer restrained the other arm.

The defendant pulled down the waistband of his underwear 

and told the officers, in substance, "See, I don't have 

anything." But when he did so, Singer noticed a plastic bag 

protruding from the defendant's buttocks. He asked the 

defendant to remove the bag and the defendant stated, "I will 

get it for you if you don't charge me." Singer then ordered the 

defendant to remove the bag, and told the defendant that he 

would remove it himself if the defendant refused to do so. The 

defendant complied and, with Singer's hand on top of the 

defendant's hand, the defendant pulled down his underwear and 

removed the bag from his buttocks area. It contained fifteen 
5

individually wrapped bags of cocaine and thirteen individually 

wrapped bags of heroin.

After a grand jury indicted the defendant on charges of

possession of cocaine and heroin with intent to distribute, as 

subsequent offenses, the defendant moved to suppress the drugs 

that were found in the plastic bag that was removed during the 

strip search. Following an evidentiary hearing, a Superior 

Court judge denied the motion. The judge concluded that there 

was probable cause to believe that the defendant was attempting 

to conceal contraband "in a private area of his body," so a 

strip search was "proper." The judge also concluded that "[t]he 

strip search did not cross over to a cavity search," noting that

the defendant removed the bag himself after Singer ordered him 

to do so. A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant on the 

lesser included counts of simple possession of both cocaine and 

heroin. The defendant timely appealed, challenging the 

lawfulness of the search.

The Appeals Court concluded that the defendant's motion to 

suppress should have been allowed, and vacated the defendant's 

convictions. Commonwealth v. Jeannis, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 856, 

862-863 (2018). The court determined that the Commonwealth 

failed to meet its "burden to provide evidence from which the 

judge could find that no portion of the bag was within the 

defendant's rectum." Id. at 859. Because the item was 
6

presumptively "seiz[ed] from within a body cavity," id. at 861,

the court concluded that the heightened constitutional 

requirements to perform a manual body cavity search must apply 

in these circumstances. Although the court concluded that 

"there was heightened probable cause to believe that the bag 

protruding from the defendant's rectum contained contraband," it 

nonetheless held that the drugs found in the bag should have 

been suppressed because the bag "was seized without a judicial 

warrant in circumstances that do not justify failure to obtain 

one." Id. at 862. We granted the Commonwealth's application 

for further appellate review.

Discussion. We credit the motion judge's subsidiary 

findings of fact, but we review de novo his legal conclusion 

that the strip search of the defendant did not cross the line 

into a manual body cavity search. See Commonwealth v. Thomas, 

429 Mass. 403, 405 (1999). See also Commonwealth v. Catanzaro, 

441 Mass. 46, 50 (2004) (appellate courts "independently 

determine the correctness of the [motion] judge's application of 

constitutional principles to the facts as found"). To conduct 

that analysis, we must first review the constitutional 

principles that apply to strip searches, visual body cavity 

searches, and manual body cavity searches.

1. Strip searches, visual body cavity searches, and manual 

body cavity searches. A strip search occurs when "the last 
7

layer of clothing of a detainee [is] removed," or "when a 

detainee remains partially clothed, but . . . a last layer of 

clothing is moved (and not necessarily removed) in such a manner 

whereby an intimate area of the detainee is viewed, exposed, or 

displayed." Commonwealth v. Morales, 462 Mass. 334, 342 (2012).

A visual body cavity search occurs when a strip search "extends 

to a visual inspection of the anal and genital areas." Thomas, 

429 Mass. at 407 n.4.

"[S]trip or visual body cavity searches, by their very 

nature, are humiliating, demeaning, and terrifying experiences 

that, without question, constitute a substantial intrusion on 

one's personal privacy rights protected under the Fourth 

Amendment and art. 14." Commonwealth v. Prophete, 443 Mass. 

548, 553 (2005), citing Thomas, 429 Mass. at 408-409 & n.5. Yet 

we recognize "that such searches are, in some cases, necessary 

to serve legitimate ends of law enforcement." Prophete, supra.

The same constitutional standards apply to both strip 

searches and visual body cavity searches. Thomas, 429 Mass. at 

408. We permit law enforcement officers to conduct such 

intrusive searches only where they have probable cause to 

believe that the defendant had concealed drugs, a weapon, 

contraband, or evidence of a crime on his or her person or 

clothing in a place where it would not be discovered by a 

traditional search of the person -- that is, in a place where 
8

the police reasonably could not expect to discover it without 

exposing or inspecting an intimate area of the defendant's body. 

See Morales, 462 Mass. at 339, quoting Prophete, 443 Mass. at 

554 ("A search of a defendant 'lawfully could progressively 

extend into a strip [or a visual body cavity] search only if 

such a search was justified by probable cause to believe that 

the defendant had concealed [drugs] on his person or his 

clothing that would not otherwise be discovered by the usual 

search incident to arrest'"). See also Commonwealth v. Agogo, 

481 Mass. 633, 637 (2019).

We also require that such a search be "reasonably 

conducted," considering the need for the search, the manner and 

place in which it is conducted, and the scope of the intrusion. 

Morales, 462 Mass. at 342. See Agogo, 481 Mass. at 638. "At 

all times the potential harm to a detainee's health and dignity 

should be taken into account in assessing the reasonableness of 

the intrusion." Morales, supra at 343. "To preserve the 

privacy of the person being searched to the utmost extent, 

police should conduct strip and visual body cavity searches in 

private rooms whenever possible." Thomas, 429 Mass. at 409 n.5. 

"In addition, the searches should always be done where no one, 

other than the investigating officer or officers, can see the 

person being searched." Id.
9

A manual body cavity search occurs where there is touching, 

probing, or manipulation of a body cavity, such as the anal or 

vaginal cavities. See Commonwealth v. Vick, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 

622, 629 (2016). See also Thomas, 429 Mass. at 408. See 

generally Simonitsch, Visual Body Cavity Searches Incident to 

Arrest: Validity Under the Fourth Amendment, 54 U. Miami L. 

Rev. 665, 668 (2000) ("[M]anual body cavity searches, also known 

as physical body cavity searches, include . . . those performed 

by insertion of, or manipulation with, the fingers, [and] also 

endoscopic examinations, and the use of gynecological devices"

[footnote omitted]).

Because "[i]t is difficult to imagine a more intrusive, 

humiliating, and demeaning search than the one conducted inside 

[a person's] body," Rodriques, 410 Mass. at 888, and because 

this type of search may pose an inherent threat to a person's 

health and safety, law enforcement officers may conduct such a 

search only where they first obtain a warrant "issued by the 

authority of a judge, on a strong showing of particularized need 

supported by a high degree of probable cause." Id. As with any 

other constitutional search, the presence of exigent 

circumstances may excuse the failure to obtain a warrant, but it 

will not excuse the need for a strong showing of particularized 

need supported by a high degree of probable cause. See Morales, 

462 Mass. at 343-344.
10

2. Bag protruding from the cleft between the buttocks. 

Where, as here, a strip search reveals that a plastic bag is 

protruding from the cleft between a defendant's buttocks, the 

police must determine whether removal of the bag is part of the 

strip search, which requires probable cause but not a search 

warrant, or constitutes a manual body cavity search, which in 

the absence of exigency requires a search warrant issued by a 

judge. The Appeals Court concluded that the police in these 

circumstances were required to apply for a search warrant to 

remove the bag because they had failed to ascertain that "no 

portion of the bag was within the defendant's rectum."1 Jeannis, 

93 Mass. App. Ct. at 859.

We agree with the Appeals Court that police officers, if 

they have probable cause, may conduct a visual body cavity 

search to learn more about the precise location of a protruding

bag and that, if they determine through that visual search that 

the bag is solely within the intergluteal cleft of the 

 

1 The "anus" is "[t]he very end -- the last inch or so -- of 

the digestive canal, more specifically of the rectum." 1 J.E. 

Schmidt, Attorneys' Dictionary of Medicine and Word Finder, at 

A-273 (1986). The opening of the anus leads to the groove 

between the buttocks. Id. The "rectum" is "[t]he last five or 

six inches of the colon (large intestine, large bowel) . . . 

opening to the outside (in the groove between the buttocks) 

through the anus." 3 J.E. Schmidt, Attorneys' Dictionary of 

Medicine and Word Finder, at R-31 (1988).
11

defendant's buttocks2 and has not entered the anus, they may 

remove the bag based on the same probable cause that justified 

the visual body cavity search. But we do not agree that a 

search warrant for a manual body cavity search is always 

required to remove a plastic bag where the police did not or 

could not ascertain that the bag is located completely outside 

of the rectum -- that is, where it did not to any degree 

penetrate the anus. Rather, we conclude that a search is a 

strip or visual body cavity search, not a manual body cavity 

search, where there is "no touching or probing or otherwise 

opening or manipulating of the defendant's anal cavity, and the 

bag of drugs was easily removed without in any way endangering 

the defendant's health or safety." Vick, 90 Mass. App. Ct. at 

629.

This means that, where police officers are uncertain 

whether the bag has penetrated the defendant's anus, they have 

two alternatives. First, where they have probable cause to do 

so, they may conduct a visual body cavity search to determine 

whether the bag has penetrated the defendant's anus. If it has 

 

2 The "buttocks" are "[t]he fleshy prominences in the back 

of the hips upon which the trunk rests when the body is in a 

sitting posture." 1 J.E. Schmidt, Attorneys' Dictionary of 

Medicine and Word Finder, supra at B-132. The "intergluteal 

cleft" is the "split, fissure, or crack" in the area between the 

buttocks. Id. at C-190. 2 J.E. Schmidt, Attorneys' Dictionary 

of Medicine and Word Finder, at I-80 (1988).
12

not, they may remove the bag without a search warrant. Second, 

where the bag has penetrated the anus or where the police 

officers have not ascertained through a visual body cavity 

search whether it has, they may determine whether the bag can be 

safely removed without any touching, probing, or manipulation of 

the rectum. See id. If it can be safely removed and if there 

is no touching, probing, or manipulation of the rectum, the 

removal of the bag is not a manual body cavity search. See id.

However, if the bag cannot be safely removed without any 

touching, probing, or manipulation of the rectum or if there is

uncertainty whether it can be, the officers must apply for a 

search warrant for a manual body cavity search, unless exigent 

circumstances justify proceeding without a warrant. See id. at 

628-629.

Pragmatically, a police officer may determine whether the 

bag can be safely removed without any touching, probing, or 

manipulation of the rectum by gently flicking the bag with his 

or her fingers, applying no significant pulling force on the 

bag. If that suffices to remove the bag without any resistance, 

we do not consider the search to be a manual body cavity search. 

See id. at 625, 629. A gentle flick to remove a plastic bag 

protruding from the cleft of a defendant's buttocks may in some 

circumstances be safer and less intrusive than a visual body 

cavity search intended to determine whether the bag has 
13

penetrated the defendant's anus. It is easy to envision a 

defendant resisting an intrusive and embarrassing visual body 

cavity search, risking injury to both the defendant and the 

police officers attempting to restrain the defendant. And a 

gentle flick may be less intrusive than a visual inspection 

because a police officer attempting to conduct the inspection 

might need to place his or her fingers so close to the anus that 

he or she might come close to a touching or probing that would 

constitute a manual body cavity search.

If there is any resistance to the gentle flick, indicating 

that the bag is in any way lodged or embedded within the body 

cavity, then the police must release the bag and apply for a 

search warrant for a manual body cavity search, unless there are 

exigent circumstances. We recognize the health risk that may 

arise if a police officer were to continue to pull on the bag 

where there is any resistance. In United States v. Fowlkes, 804 

F.3d 954, 959-960 (9th Cir. 2015), a police officer continued to 

pull on a bag protruding from the defendant's rectum after 

encountering resistance in what was described as "a difficult, 

abrasive procedure," where the plastic bag "went from a dime 

size . . . to somewhat near a golf ball size as it was taken 

out," and was "covered in blood." The requirement of a search 

warrant for a manual body cavity search is intended not only to 

ensure that a judge determines whether there is a strong showing 
14

of particularized need supported by a high degree of probable 

cause, Rodriques, 410 Mass. at 888, but also to ensure that any 

such search is conducted in a safe, reasonable manner under 

sanitary conditions by a trained medical professional. See 

Fowlkes, supra at 967 (warrantless forcible seizure of plastic 

bag protruding from defendant's rectum was unreasonable under 

Fourth Amendment where item of unknown size was removed from 

rectum by nonmedical personnel who "did nothing to assure that 

the removal was safe and performed under sanitary conditions").

3. Application of legal principles to removal of plastic 

bag here. The defendant on appeal argues that the removal of 

the plastic bag that protruded from the cleft of his buttocks 

constituted a manual body cavity search, and that the officers 

failed to obtain the necessary judicial warrant before removing 

the bag. The Commonwealth, in turn, contends that the strip 

search never became a manual body cavity search and thus did not 

require a warrant. Because we conclude that the Commonwealth is 

correct, we do not reach the other issue the parties raise --

whether exigent circumstances justified an exception to the 

warrant requirement.

The judge's findings indicate only that the plastic bag 

that contained the drugs protruded from the defendant's 

"buttocks"; the judge did not find whether any part of the 

plastic bag was in the defendant's rectum, and the evidence on 
15

that point is not so clear that we can infer that the judge 

implicitly found that the bag did not penetrate into the rectum 

where he concluded that "[t]he strip search did not cross over 

to a cavity search." Therefore, because the burden rests with 

the Commonwealth on a motion to suppress to justify a 

warrantless search, Commonwealth v. Antobenedetto, 366 Mass. 51, 

57 (1974), and because the Commonwealth did not prove that the 

plastic bag did not to some degree penetrate the defendant's 

anus, we must assume for the sake of this motion that the 

plastic bag did penetrate into the rectum.3 But in contrast to 

what the defendant suggests, our task does not end there. 

Instead, we must determine whether the removal of the bag was 

conducted in a manner permissible for a strip search -- that is, 

whether the removal of the bag met with any resistance that 

suggested that it was lodged or embedded in the victim's rectum.

 

3 The parties dispute the relevance of certain medical 

records that were admitted in evidence at (or following) the 

motion to suppress hearing. These records, produced by the 

ambulatory service that brought the defendant to a hospital from 

the Revere police station, contain a note stating: "PER REVERE 

[POLICE DEPARTMENT] [PATIENT] HAS BEEN ARRESTED, HAD BEEN FOUND 

TO HAVE BAGS OF TIGHTLY WRAPPED CRACK COCAINE AND HEROIN 

(SEPARATELY) HIDDEN IN HIS RECTUM." The defendant argues that 

these records confirm that the police knew or believed that the 

bag was located partly within the defendant's rectum. But as 

discussed supra, with no factual findings to the contrary, we 

must already make that assumption for the purpose of deciding 

this appeal.
16

Although the judge's findings on this factual issue are not 

as clear as we would prefer, we see no need to remand the case.

There is nothing in the judge's findings to suggest that the bag 

required more than minimal force to remove, and we therefore 

conclude that the judge implicitly found that the bag was safely 

removed without any touching, probing, or manipulation of the 

rectum. The judge found that Singer's hand was on top of the 

defendant's hand while the defendant pulled out the bag, and the 

defendant in his testimony said that "with my free hand I just 

retrieved it."4 The size of the 275 pound defendant compared to 

the small plastic bag at issue -- a photograph of which was

admitted in evidence -- supported the finding that the bag, 

which was apparently visible outside the intergluteal cleft as 

soon as the defendant pulled down his waistband, did not extend 

so far down as to be lodged or embedded in his rectum. Although 

we cannot know with certainty on this record whether any part of 

the bag was inside the rectum, the facts as found support the 

conclusion that the bag was not lodged or embedded in the 

defendant's rectum but was easily removed, and therefore the 

defendant's rectum did not need to be "manipulated" in order to 

 

4 The defendant testified that Singer had put his fingers up 

the defendant's rectum and "probably pulled [the plastic bag] 

out half way" before the defendant removed it himself, but the 

judge did not credit the defendant's testimony regarding 

Singer's conduct.
17

retrieve the bag. Consequently, a search warrant issued by a 

judge was not required.

In reaching this conclusion, we give no weight to the fact 

that the defendant removed the bag himself, with Singer's hand 

over his. The defendant pulled out the bag after a direct order 

from Singer to do so; he did not consent to do so voluntarily. 

See Commonwealth v. Carr, 458 Mass. 295, 302 (2010) ("The 

Commonwealth must prove consent unfettered by coercion, express 

or implied, and also something more than mere acquiescence to a 

claim of lawful authority" [quotations and citation omitted]). 

See also George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1215 (9th Cir. 2014) 

("Police officers may not avoid the requirements of the Fourth 

Amendment by inducing, coercing, promoting, or encouraging 

private parties to perform searches they would not otherwise 

perform"). Therefore, we assess the lawfulness of the officer's 

conduct as if he alone had pulled out the plastic bag.

Lastly, we recognize that the defendant has identified at 

least two States where appellate courts have ruled that the 

removal of any item protruding from a suspect's rectum was a 

manual body cavity search that required a search warrant. In 

People v. Hall, 10 N.Y.3d 303, 311, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 938

(2008), the Court of Appeals of New York concluded that "the 

removal of an object protruding from a body cavity, regardless 

of whether any insertion into the body cavity is necessary . . . 
18

cannot be accomplished without a warrant" unless exigent 

circumstances exist. In State v. Barnes, 215 Ariz. 279, 281

(Ct. App. 2007), a panel of the Court of Appeals of Arizona 

declared that "an officer must secure a warrant to remove items 

partially protruding from an arrestee's rectum." However, when 

one examines the facts of those cases, they are consistent with 

our conclusion that a warrant is required where items are lodged 

or embedded within the rectum, such that the items would require 

manipulation of the rectum to dislodge. In Hall, supra at 306, 

the police officers "observed a string . . . hanging out of 

defendant's rectum," and, "[b]elieving that the string was 

attached to a package . . . hidden inside defendant's body," one 

officer held the defendant while the other "pulled on the string 

and removed a plastic bag that was found to contain crack 

cocaine." Similarly, in Barnes, supra at 280-281, the officer 

"grabbed a hold" of "something protruding out of [the 

defendant's] anus," and the court declared that "the officer's 

manipulation and removal of the protruding portion of the bag 

necessarily exerted force on the portion of the bag extending 

into [the defendant's] rectum." Here, in contrast, where the 

Commonwealth met its burden of showing that the protruding 

plastic bag was not lodged or embedded in the defendant's rectum 

and that its removal did not cause any manipulation of the 
19

rectum, the same constitutional concerns do not arise. 

Accordingly, the motion to suppress was properly denied.

Conclusion. The order of the Superior Court judge denying 

the defendant's motion to suppress is affirmed. The judgments 

of conviction are also affirmed.

So ordered.