Opinion ID: 5328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Administration of Laxatives

Text: Finally, the appellants maintain that they were forced to take laxatives in violation of their fourth amendment privacy expectations and their due process rights.17 They rely on Rochin v. California18 wherein the Court found that forcing an emetic into 14 473 U.S. at 541 n.4. 15 United States v. Mejia, 720 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir. 1983). 16 Although at the suppression hearing Masha contended that he did not consent to the x-ray, his brief on appeal does not raise this argument. 17 Masha also contends that the evidence of heroin-filled balloons was obtained in violation of his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This argument is without merit. The fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination is limited to testimonial evidence. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2034 (1991). The forced administration of laxatives may have advanced the production of incriminating evidence, but it did not compel testimony. 18 342 U.S. 165 (1952). 10 the defendant's stomach to induce the vomiting of evidence shocked the conscience and violated due process. Appellants insist that administering laxatives to expedite the normal expulsion of evidence is no less shocking. In addition, they argue that, at a minimum, a prior judicial determination of probable cause and the reasonableness of such an intrusion was necessary.19 In Winston the Court noted the importance of an informed, detached and deliberate determination of the issue whether or not to invade another's body.20 Because the government was entitled to detain the appellants until they had a bowel movement, the administration of laxatives at the direction of physicians was not unreasonable. The district court found that the laxatives were given for reasonable medical purposes. Masha and Adekunle were at significant risk of serious injury or death if the balloons allowed the escape of large quantities of toxic substances into their systems. It was not unreasonable for the customs agents to defer to the attending physicians the decision on the appropriate medical attention indicated during the detention period.21 19 See Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985). 20 Id. at 760-61 (surgical removal of a bullet from the accused's chest, even with probable cause, unreasonably violated the accused's rights). 21 The laxatives advanced the process, but unlike the situation in Winston or Rochin, they did not cause the expulsion from the body of something which would not normally and routinely be expelled. 11 We affirm the convictions, but not without grave reservations caused by the conduct of the customs agents. They detained appellants, keeping them out of contact with any but those in their immediate environment, for over 100 hours. In Montoya de Hernandez the Supreme Court viewed the 16-hour detention at issue therein as one which exceeded any detention they previously had approved. We are mindful that Montoya de Hernandez has been cited for authority to justify far longer detentions.22 But we cannot accept without active response the circumstances of the instant detentions, particularly their total incommunicado character. Thus the following rule is to apply to all governmental agents and agencies which hereafter might detain a suspected alimentary canal smuggler in this circuit. Henceforth, all agencies and agents shall notify the local United States Attorney within 24 hours of the detaining of such a suspected smuggler. The United States Attorney shall, in turn, immediately notify a district or magistrate judge with jurisdiction and the detainee's attorney or local public defender or counsel appointed by the court.23 In addition, the United States Attorney shall make a daily report to the court until the detention is terminated or the person is brought before the court pursuant to 22 Odofin, 929 F.2d 56 (24 days before bowel movement); United States v. Onumonu, 967 F.2d 782 (2d Cir. 1992) four days before bowel movement; six days total); Esieke, 940 F.2d 29 (one and one-half days before bowel movement; three days total); United States v. Onyema, 766 F.Supp. 76 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (19 hours before bowel movement; 78 hours total); United States v. Yakubu, 936 F.2d 936 (7th Cir. 1991) (18 hours before bowel movement). 23 See Esieke, 940 F.2d at 36. 12 charges. The convictions of Masha and Adekunle are AFFIRMED. 13