Legal Opinion

State v. Brown

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 14, 2019No. A17-0870PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THISSEN, Justice.

*286This case requires us to determine whether a body cavity search performed by forcing the appellant to be strapped down and sedated and to undergo an invasive anoscopy against his will was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that forcing appellant Guntallwon Karloyea Brown to undergo an anoscopy against his will and under sedation in the presence of nonmedical personnel is a serious invasion of Brown's dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity that outweighs the State's need to retrieve relevant evidence of…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. County of Sacramento v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Rochin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  5. Cady v. DombrowskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Young v. Gila Reg'l Med. Ctr.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2020
  2. State of Minnesota v. Ivan Contreras-SanchezCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API