Opinion ID: 1925262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Strip Searches and Body Cavity Searches

Text: Paulino contends that, at a minimum, the search conducted here was a strip search. In Paulino's view, the search was more intrusive than a mere strip search because the cheeks of his buttocks were manipulated by the police. Paulino asserts that by spreading apart the cheeks of [his] buttocks the search was beyond the realm of a strip search and, instead, was a visual body cavity search. In response, the State contends that the search of Paulino occurred without removing any of Paulino's clothing and that the search arguably did not . . . constitute a `strip search.' Further, according to the State, the police action . . . did not constitute a visual or manual `body cavity search' because, to retrieve the contraband, the police officers only lifted up Paulino's shorts. For reasons discussed, infra, we conclude that the search of Paulino was both a strip search and a visual body cavity search. There exist three separate categories of searches. As the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted in Blackburn v. Snow, 771 F.2d 556 (1st Cir.1985), n. 3.: A strip search, though an umbrella term, generally refers to an inspection of a naked individual, without any scrutiny of the subject's body cavities. A visual body cavity search extends to a visual inspection of the anal and genital areas. A manual body cavity search includes some degree of touching or probing of body cavities. See Nieves, 383 Md. at 586, 861 A.2d at 70 [3] (acknowledging that a strip search is any search of an individual requiring the removal or rearrangement of some or all clothing to permit the visual inspection of the skin surfaces of the genital areas, breasts, and/or buttocks. The Court noted that [t]here is a distinction between a strip search and other types of searches, such as body cavity searches, which could involve visually inspecting the body cavities or physically probing the body cavities); McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609, 615 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (holding that when the arrestee was forced to drop his pants, bend over, and spread his buttocks and the crack cocaine recovered was in plain view and was lodged between the arrestee's buttocks, the search was a visual body cavity search); Hughes v. Commonwealth of Va., 31 Va.App. 447, 524 S.E.2d 155, 159 (2000) (holding that the arrestee was subjected to all three types of searches when the arrestee was disrobed, directed to bend over and expose his anus, cough in order to expand the officer's view of the anus, and when a plastic bag was subsequently removed from the arrestee's anal cavity). See also Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 363-64 (4th Cir.2001); United States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248, 256 (4th Cir.1997); United States v. Vance, 62 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.1995). Based upon the record before us, we conclude that the police officers' search of Paulino was both a strip search and a visual body cavity search. It appears that the police officers attempted to manipulate Paulino's clothing in such a manner that his buttocks could be more readily viewed. In this instance, the police did not only lift up Paulino's shorts, but also the officers manipulated his buttocks to allow for a better view of his anal cavity. If, in the case sub judice, the drugs were protruding from between the cheeks of Paulino's buttocks and visible without spreading his buttocks cheeks, the classification of the type of search would be a close one [4] . In this case, however, the drugs were not visible until after the cheeks of Paulino's buttocks were spread apart. Therefore, when the police officers spread the cheeks of Paulino's buttocks to inspect his anal cavity and, upon doing so, observed a plastic bag containing drugs, their conduct amounted to a visual body cavity search. [5] C.