People v. Jarvis, 2016 IL App (2d) 141231 (February). Episode 146 (Duration 4:33)

The visual examination of defendant’s buttocks might have exposed defendant’s anus. However, there was no visual inspection of the interior of defendant’s anus, let alone any physical intrusion.

Issue

Does a search warrant for the body of person need to specifically say it’s going to be a strip search?

The trial judge agreed with the defendant that this search violated 725 ILCS 5/103-1 because it did not specifically indicate it would be a strip search. defendant maintains only that the strip search exceeded the scope of the warrant.

The reviewing court saw it differently.

Facts

Defendant is arrested after a warrant to search his person is issued. At the police station in a private room defendant is asked to remove his pants and underwear. One officer gets behind defendant to see better and defendant is asked to squat and cough.

A roll of toilet paper falls out of his anus.

Rolled up inside is a clear plastic baggie with drugs.

Analysis

First of all, those cases addressing the propriety of a body-cavity search, or other physical intrusion into the body, are not controlling.

The court said it was reasonable to believe that a person who conceals drugs on his body would put them in places, such as between the buttocks, that could be revealed only via a strip search.

Therefore, the scope of the warrant authorizing a search of defendant’s body for controlled substances necessarily included a strip search that would reveal drugs concealed in such areas of defendant’s body.

To learn more about police searches in Illinois visit the search & seizure resource guide.

Holding

Thus, the strip search, as conducted here, did not exceed the scope of the warrant and did not violate the fourth amendment. Neither the complaint nor the search warrant itself needed to expressly refer to a strip search.