winston
lee
argued
october
decided
march
shopkeeper
wounded
gunshot
attempted
robbery
also
armed
gun
apparently
wounded
assailant
left
side
assailant
ran
scene
shortly
victim
taken
hospital
police
officers
found
respondent
suffering
gunshot
wound
left
chest
area
eight
blocks
away
shooting
also
taken
hospital
victim
identified
assailant
investigation
police
charged
respondent
inter
alia
attempted
robbery
malicious
wounding
thereafter
commonwealth
virginia
moved
state
order
directing
respondent
undergo
surgery
remove
bullet
lodged
left
collarbone
asserting
bullet
provide
evidence
respondent
guilt
innocence
basis
expert
testimony
surgery
require
incision
inch
performed
local
anesthesia
result
danger
basis
general
anesthesia
employed
granted
motion
virginia
denied
respondent
petition
writ
prohibition
writ
habeas
corpus
respondent
brought
action
federal
district
enjoin
pending
operation
fourth
amendment
grounds
refused
issue
preliminary
injunction
subsequently
rays
taken
surgery
scheduled
showed
bullet
lodged
substantially
deeper
thought
state
granted
motion
compel
surgery
surgeon
concluded
general
anesthetic
desirable
respondent
unsuccessfully
sought
rehearing
state
trial
virginia
affirmed
however
respondent
returned
federal
district
evidentiary
hearing
enjoined
threatened
surgery
appeals
affirmed
held
proposed
surgery
violate
respondent
right
secure
person
search
unreasonable
fourth
amendment
pp
compelled
surgical
intrusion
individual
body
evidence
implicates
expectations
privacy
security
magnitude
intrusion
may
unreasonable
even
likely
produce
evidence
crime
reasonableness
surgical
intrusions
beneath
skin
depends
approach
individual
interests
privacy
security
weighed
society
interests
conducting
procedure
obtain
evidence
fairly
determining
guilt
innocence
appropriate
framework
analysis
cases
provided
schmerber
california
held
state
may
suspect
protest
physician
extract
blood
person
suspected
drunken
driving
without
violating
suspect
fourth
amendment
rights
beyond
threshold
requirements
probable
cause
warrants
schmerber
inquiry
considered
factors
determining
reasonableness
including
extent
procedure
may
threaten
individual
safety
health
extent
intrusion
upon
individual
dignitary
interests
personal
privacy
bodily
integrity
community
interest
fairly
accurately
determining
guilt
innocence
pp
schmerber
balancing
test
lower
federal
courts
reached
correct
result
threats
respondent
safety
posed
surgery
subject
sharp
dispute
conflict
testimony
concerning
nature
scope
operation
thus
resulting
uncertainty
medical
risks
properly
taken
account
moreover
intrusion
respondent
privacy
interests
bodily
integrity
characterized
severe
surgery
without
patient
consent
performed
general
anesthetic
search
evidence
crime
involves
virtually
total
divestment
patient
ordinary
control
surgical
probing
beneath
skin
hand
commonwealth
assertions
compelling
need
intrude
respondent
body
retrieve
bullet
persuasive
commonwealth
available
substantial
additional
evidence
respondent
individual
accosted
victim
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
burger
white
marshall
powell
stevens
joined
burger
filed
concurring
opinion
post
blackmun
rehnquist
concurred
judgment
stacy
garrett
iii
argued
cause
filed
brief
petitioners
joseph
ryland
winston
argued
cause
filed
briefs
respondent
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
schmerber
california
held
inter
alia
state
may
suspect
protest
physician
extract
blood
person
suspected
drunken
driving
without
violation
suspect
right
secured
fourth
amendment
subjected
unreasonable
searches
seizures
however
schmerber
cautioned
today
hold
constitution
forbid
minor
intrusions
individual
body
stringently
limited
conditions
way
indicates
permits
substantial
intrusions
intrusions
conditions
case
commonwealth
virginia
seeks
compel
respondent
rudolph
lee
suspected
attempting
commit
armed
robbery
undergo
surgical
procedure
general
anesthetic
removal
bullet
lodged
chest
petitioners
allege
bullet
provide
evidence
respondent
guilt
innocence
conclude
procedure
sought
example
substantial
intrusion
cautioned
schmerber
hold
permit
procedure
violate
respondent
right
secure
person
guaranteed
fourth
amendment
approximately
july
ralph
watkinson
closing
shop
night
locking
door
observed
someone
armed
gun
coming
toward
across
street
watkinson
also
armed
drew
gun
person
told
freeze
watkinson
fired
person
returned
fire
watkinson
hit
legs
individual
appeared
wounded
left
side
ran
scene
police
arrived
scene
shortly
thereafter
watkinson
taken
ambulance
emergency
room
medical
college
virginia
mcv
hospital
approximately
minutes
later
police
officers
responding
another
call
found
respondent
eight
blocks
earlier
shooting
occurred
respondent
suffering
gunshot
wound
left
chest
area
told
police
shot
two
individuals
attempted
rob
ambulance
took
respondent
mcv
hospital
watkinson
still
mcv
emergency
room
respondent
entered
room
said
hat
man
shot
app
investigation
police
decided
respondent
story
victim
robbery
untrue
charged
respondent
attempted
robbery
malicious
wounding
two
counts
using
firearm
commission
felony
commonwealth
shortly
thereafter
moved
state
order
directing
respondent
undergo
surgery
remove
object
thought
bullet
lodged
left
collarbone
conducted
several
evidentiary
hearings
motion
first
hearing
commonwealth
expert
testified
surgical
procedure
take
minutes
involve
three
four
percent
chance
temporary
nerve
damage
one
percent
chance
permanent
nerve
damage
one
percent
chance
death
second
hearing
expert
testified
reexamination
respondent
discovered
bullet
back
inside
close
nerves
arteries
originally
thought
instead
believed
bullet
located
beneath
skin
testified
surgery
require
incision
one
centimeters
slightly
inch
performed
local
anesthesia
result
danger
basis
general
anesthesia
employed
state
trial
judge
granted
motion
compel
surgery
respondent
petitioned
virginia
writ
prohibition
writ
habeas
corpus
denied
respondent
brought
action
district
eastern
district
virginia
enjoin
pending
operation
fourth
amendment
grounds
refused
issue
preliminary
injunction
holding
respondent
cause
little
likelihood
success
merits
supp
october
surgery
scheduled
surgeon
ordered
rays
taken
respondent
chest
rays
revealed
bullet
fact
lodged
two
three
centimeters
approximately
one
inch
deep
muscular
tissue
respondent
chest
substantially
deeper
thought
state
granted
motion
compel
surgery
surgeon
believed
general
anesthetic
desirable
medical
reasons
respondent
moved
state
trial
rehearing
based
new
evidence
holding
evidentiary
hearing
state
trial
denied
rehearing
virginia
affirmed
respondent
returned
federal
moved
alter
amend
judgment
previously
entered
evidentiary
hearing
district
enjoined
threatened
surgery
supplemental
opinion
divided
panel
appeals
fourth
circuit
affirmed
granted
certiorari
consider
whether
state
may
consistently
fourth
amendment
compel
suspect
undergo
surgery
kind
search
evidence
crime
ii
fourth
amendment
protects
expectations
privacy
see
katz
individual
legitimate
expectations
certain
places
certain
times
right
let
alone
comprehensive
rights
right
valued
civilized
men
olmstead
brandeis
dissenting
putting
one
side
procedural
protections
warrant
requirement
fourth
amendment
generally
protects
security
persons
houses
papers
effects
official
intrusions
point
community
need
evidence
surmounts
specified
standard
ordinarily
probable
cause
beyond
point
ordinarily
justifiable
community
demand
individual
give
part
interest
privacy
security
advance
community
vital
interests
law
enforcement
search
generally
reasonable
amendment
terms
compelled
surgical
intrusion
individual
body
evidence
however
implicates
expectations
privacy
security
magnitude
intrusion
may
unreasonable
even
likely
produce
evidence
crime
schmerber
california
addressed
claim
state
breached
fourth
amendment
protection
right
people
secure
persons
unreasonable
searches
seizures
emphasis
added
compelled
individual
suspected
drunken
driving
undergo
blood
test
schmerber
arrested
hospital
receiving
treatment
injuries
suffered
automobile
driving
struck
tree
despite
schmerber
objection
police
officer
hospital
directed
physician
take
blood
sample
schmerber
subsequently
objected
introduction
trial
evidence
obtained
result
blood
test
authorities
schmerber
clearly
probable
cause
believe
driving
intoxicated
believe
blood
test
provide
evidence
exceptionally
probative
confirming
belief
case
fell
within
exception
warrant
requirement
warrant
necessary
ibid
search
intrusive
reasonably
necessary
accomplish
goals
nonetheless
schmerber
argued
fourth
amendment
prohibited
authorities
intruding
body
extract
blood
needed
evidence
schmerber
noted
overriding
function
fourth
amendment
protect
personal
privacy
dignity
unwarranted
intrusion
state
citing
wolf
colorado
mapp
ohio
observed
values
basic
free
society
also
noted
ecause
dealing
intrusions
human
body
rather
state
interferences
property
relationships
private
papers
houses
papers
effects
write
clean
slate
intrusion
perhaps
implicated
schmerber
personal
expectations
privacy
recognized
fourth
amendment
analysis
thus
required
discerning
inquiry
facts
circumstances
determine
whether
intrusion
justifiable
fourth
amendment
neither
forbids
permits
intrusions
rather
amendment
proper
function
constrain
intrusions
intrusions
justified
circumstances
made
improper
manner
reasonableness
surgical
intrusions
beneath
skin
depends
approach
individual
interests
privacy
security
weighed
society
interests
conducting
procedure
given
case
question
whether
community
need
evidence
outweighs
substantial
privacy
interests
stake
delicate
one
admitting
categorical
answers
believe
schmerber
however
provides
appropriate
framework
analysis
cases
schmerber
recognized
ordinary
requirements
fourth
amendment
threshold
requirements
conducting
kind
surgical
search
seizure
noted
importance
probable
cause
pointed
search
warrants
ordinarily
required
searches
dwellings
absent
emergency
less
required
intrusions
human
body
concerned
importance
informed
detached
deliberate
determinations
issue
whether
invade
another
body
search
evidence
guilt
indisputable
great
beyond
standards
schmerber
inquiry
considered
number
factors
determining
reasonableness
blood
test
crucial
factor
analyzing
magnitude
intrusion
schmerber
extent
procedure
may
threaten
safety
health
individual
people
blood
test
involves
virtually
risk
trauma
pain
moreover
reasonable
medical
precautions
taken
unusual
untested
procedures
employed
schmerber
procedure
performed
physician
hospital
environment
according
accepted
medical
practices
ibid
notwithstanding
existence
probable
cause
search
evidence
crime
may
unjustifiable
endangers
life
health
suspect
another
factor
extent
intrusion
upon
individual
dignitary
interests
personal
privacy
bodily
integrity
intruding
individual
living
room
see
payton
new
york
eavesdropping
upon
individual
telephone
conversations
see
katz
forcing
individual
accompany
police
officers
police
station
see
dunaway
new
york
typically
injure
physical
person
individual
intrusions
however
damage
individual
sense
personal
privacy
security
thus
subject
fourth
amendment
dictates
noting
blood
test
commonplace
days
periodic
physical
examinations
schmerber
recognized
society
judgment
blood
tests
constitute
unduly
extensive
imposition
individual
personal
privacy
bodily
integrity
weighed
individual
interests
community
interest
fairly
accurately
determining
guilt
innocence
interest
course
great
importance
noted
schmerber
blood
test
highly
effective
means
determining
degree
person
influence
alcohol
moreover
clear
indication
fact
desired
evidence
found
blood
test
undertaken
especially
given
difficulty
proving
drunkenness
means
considerations
showed
results
blood
test
vital
importance
state
enforce
drunken
driving
laws
schmerber
concluded
state
interest
sufficient
justify
intrusion
compelled
blood
test
thus
reasonable
fourth
amendment
purposes
iii
applying
schmerber
balancing
test
case
believe
appeals
reached
correct
result
commonwealth
plainly
probable
cause
conduct
search
addition
parties
apparently
agree
respondent
full
measure
procedural
protections
able
fully
litigate
difficult
medical
legal
questions
necessarily
involved
analyzing
reasonableness
surgical
incision
magnitude
inquiry
therefore
must
focus
extent
intrusion
respondent
privacy
interests
state
need
evidence
threats
health
safety
respondent
posed
surgery
subject
sharp
dispute
parties
new
revelations
october
district
found
procedure
carried
virtually
risk
respondent
rehearing
however
new
evidence
district
held
risks
previously
involved
increased
magnitude
even
new
risks
added
appeals
examined
medical
evidence
record
found
respondent
suffer
risks
associated
surgical
procedure
one
surgeon
testified
difficulty
discovering
exact
location
bullet
require
extensive
probing
retracting
muscle
tissue
carrying
concomitant
risks
injury
muscle
well
injury
nerves
blood
vessels
tissue
chest
pleural
cavity
noted
greater
intrusion
larger
incisions
increase
risks
infection
ibid
moreover
conflict
testimony
concerning
nature
scope
operation
one
surgeon
stated
take
minutes
another
predicted
procedure
take
two
hours
ibid
properly
took
resulting
uncertainty
medical
risks
account
lower
courts
case
believed
proposed
surgery
purely
medical
reasons
required
use
general
anesthetic
extensive
intrusion
respondent
personal
privacy
bodily
integrity
ibid
conducted
consent
patient
surgery
requiring
general
anesthesia
necessarily
demeaning
intrusive
case
surgeon
carrying
patient
concerning
patient
body
patient
right
privacy
therefore
preserved
case
however
appeals
noted
commonwealth
proposes
take
control
respondent
body
drug
citizen
yet
convicted
criminal
offense
narcotics
barbiturates
state
unconsciousness
search
beneath
skin
evidence
crime
kind
surgery
involves
virtually
total
divestment
respondent
ordinary
control
surgical
probing
beneath
skin
part
balance
concerns
commonwealth
need
intrude
respondent
body
retrieve
bullet
commonwealth
claims
need
bullet
demonstrate
fired
watkinson
gun
turn
show
respondent
robber
confronted
watkinson
however
although
recognize
difficulty
making
determinations
advance
strength
case
respondent
petitioners
assertions
compelling
need
bullet
hardly
persuasive
circumstances
relied
case
demonstrate
probable
cause
believe
evidence
found
tend
vitiate
commonwealth
need
compel
respondent
undergo
surgery
commonwealth
available
substantial
additional
evidence
respondent
individual
accosted
watkinson
night
robbery
party
case
suggests
watkinson
entirely
spontaneous
identification
respondent
hospital
inadmissible
addition
petitioners
doubt
prove
watkinson
found
blocks
watkinson
store
shortly
incident
took
place
petitioners
certainly
show
location
bullet
respondent
left
collarbone
seems
correlate
watkinson
report
robber
jerked
left
app
fact
commonwealth
available
substantial
evidence
origin
bullet
restricts
need
commonwealth
compel
respondent
undergo
contemplated
surgery
weighing
various
factors
case
therefore
reach
conclusion
courts
operation
sought
intrude
substantially
respondent
protected
interests
medical
risks
operation
although
apparently
extremely
severe
subject
considerable
dispute
uncertainty
militates
finding
operation
reasonable
addition
intrusion
respondent
privacy
interests
entailed
operation
characterized
severe
hand
although
bullet
may
turn
useful
commonwealth
prosecuting
respondent
commonwealth
failed
demonstrate
compelling
need
believe
circumstances
commonwealth
failed
demonstrate
reasonable
terms
fourth
amendment
search
evidence
crime
means
contemplated
surgery
iv
fourth
amendment
vital
safeguard
right
citizen
free
unreasonable
governmental
intrusions
area
reasonable
expectation
privacy
found
lesser
expectation
privacy
see
rakas
illinois
south
dakota
opperman
search
involves
minimal
intrusion
privacy
interests
see
hensley
dunaway
new
york
adams
williams
terry
ohio
held
fourth
amendment
protections
correspondingly
less
stringent
conversely
however
fourth
amendment
command
searches
reasonable
requires
state
seeks
intrude
upon
area
society
recognizes
significantly
heightened
privacy
interest
substantial
justification
required
make
search
reasonable
applying
principles
hold
proposed
search
case
unreasonable
fourth
amendment
affirmed
footnotes
respondent
moved
reopen
petition
habeas
corpus
well
alter
amend
judgment
petitioners
moved
dismiss
petition
habeas
ground
respondent
time
custody
purposes
district
rejected
contention
holding
habeas
available
respondent
objecting
future
custody
take
place
operation
performed
appeals
held
respondent
claim
cognizable
respondent
review
holding
therefore
us
fourth
circuit
held
allen
mccurry
supra
bar
respondent
attempt
relitigate
federal
fourth
amendment
issues
previously
litigated
state
agreed
district
conclusion
see
respondent
full
fair
opportunity
litigate
state
trial
respondent
filed
motion
rehearing
state
october
day
informed
changed
circumstances
regarding
removal
bullet
october
state
ordered
evidentiary
hearing
held
october
appeals
satisfied
record
counsel
able
despite
obviously
diligent
effort
obtain
independent
review
medical
record
outside
physicians
able
consult
independent
expert
anesthesiology
order
prepare
presentation
risks
general
anesthesia
yet
despite
crucial
nature
medical
evidence
state
refused
grant
respondent
repeated
request
continuance
arbitrary
truncation
preparation
time
deprived
respondent
fair
opportunity
determine
crucial
factors
relevant
claim
obtain
independent
expert
witnesses
testify
factors
appeals
refused
grant
preclusive
effect
state
findings
petitioners
challenge
ruling
numerous
courts
recognized
crucial
importance
factor
see
bowden
state
ark
refusing
order
surgery
medical
risk
people
smith
misc
state
allen
see
also
case
widener
dissenting
crowder
app
en
banc
cert
denied
state
overstreet
mo
en
banc
see
generally
note
marq
rev
discussing
cases
involving
bodily
intrusions
note
notre
dame
rev
note
texas
rev
mandell
richardson
surgical
search
removing
scar
fourth
amendment
crim
see
also
schmerber
blood
test
procedure
become
routine
everyday
life
ritual
going
military
service
well
applying
marriage
licenses
many
colleges
require
tests
permitting
entrance
literally
millions
us
voluntarily
gone
though
longer
routine
becoming
blood
donors
quoting
breithaupt
abram
degree
intrusion
schmerber
minimized
well
fact
blood
test
involves
virtually
risk
trauma
pain
fact
blood
test
conducted
hospital
environment
according
accepted
medical
practices
ibid
procedure
schmerber
contrasted
sharply
practice
rochin
california
police
officers
broke
suspect
room
attempted
extract
narcotics
capsules
put
mouth
took
hospital
directed
emetic
administered
induce
vomiting
rochin
recognizing
individual
interest
human
dignity
held
search
seizure
unconstitutional
due
process
clause
state
afforded
respondent
benefit
full
adversary
presentation
appellate
review
reach
question
whether
state
may
compel
suspect
undergo
surgical
search
magnitude
evidence
absent
special
procedural
protections
cf
crowder
supra
state
lawson
super
app
div
appeals
concluded
however
specific
physical
risks
putting
respondent
general
anesthesia
may
therefore
considered
minimal
testimony
shown
general
risks
harm
death
general
anesthesia
quite
low
respondent
statistical
group
persons
lowest
risk
injury
general
anesthesia
ibid
one
expert
testified
minor
surgery
see
app
question
whether
surgery
characterized
medical
terms
major
minor
controlling
agree
appeals
district
case
reason
suppose
definition
medical
term
art
coincide
parameters
constitutional
standard
quoted
accord
state
overstreet
mean
application
medical
concepts
cases
ignored
however
specific
medical
categorization
control
multifaceted
legal
inquiry
must
undertake
somewhat
different
issues
raised
use
general
anesthetic
became
necessary
patient
refusal
cooperate
cf
state
lawson
supra
also
questions
concerning
probative
value
bullet
even
retrieved
evidentiary
value
bullet
depends
comparison
markings
bullet
respondent
shoulder
markings
found
test
bullet
police
fire
watkinson
gun
however
record
supports
doubt
whether
kind
comparison
possible
bullet
markings
may
corroded
time
bullet
respondent
shoulder
thus
making
useless
comparison
purposes
see
addition
respondent
argues
given
gun
may
incapable
firing
bullets
consistent
set
markings
see
joling
overview
firearms
identification
evidence
attorneys
salient
features
firearms
evidence
forensic
sci
record
devoid
evidence
police
attempted
watkinson
gun
thus
remains
additional
possibility
comparison
bullets
impossible
watkinson
gun
consistently
fire
bullets
markings
however
courts
made
findings
point
hesitate
give
significant
weight
analysis
chief
justice
burger
concurring
join
read
opinion
preventing
detention
individual
reasonable
grounds
believe
natural
bodily
functions
disclose
presence
contraband
materials
secreted
internally