97 N.Y.2d 209 (2002)
A warrantless body cavity search conducted incident to an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless exigent circumstances justify dispensing with the warrant requirement.
Summary
Defendant was convicted of drug possession and other charges after police found crack cocaine in his rectum during a strip search incident to arrest. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the warrantless body cavity search violated the Fourth Amendment because the prosecution failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying the failure to obtain a warrant. The Court emphasized that body cavity searches are highly intrusive and require a warrant unless an immediate search is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence or protect officer safety.
Facts
Police entered an apartment with the tenant’s permission and were informed that individuals inside were preparing cocaine for sale. Upon entering, they observed the defendant sitting on a couch with a woman and saw a crack pipe and white rock-like substance on a table. Based on his experience, a detective believed the substance was crack cocaine. The police arrested the defendant and the woman, handcuffed them, and conducted a pat-down search for weapons, which yielded nothing. Subsequently, the police conducted a strip search of both individuals in a bedroom. During the search of the defendant, officers observed a plastic bag protruding from his rectum, which contained cocaine.
Procedural History
The defendant moved to suppress the drugs seized from his person, arguing the arrest lacked probable cause and the body cavity search was illegal without a warrant or exigent circumstances. The County Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed.
Issue(s)
Whether a warrantless body cavity search, conducted incident to a lawful arrest, is permissible under the Fourth Amendment without a showing of exigent circumstances.
Holding
<n
No, because absent exigent circumstances, a warrant is required for a body cavity search, given the highly intrusive nature of such a search and the need for a neutral magistrate to determine its justification.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), which established that intrusions beyond the body’s surface require a “clear indication” that evidence will be found and, absent an emergency, a search warrant. The Court emphasized the significant privacy interests implicated by body cavity searches, describing them as “invasive” and “degrading,” citing People v. Luna, 73 N.Y.2d 173, 178 (1989). The Court found that the prosecution failed to present any evidence of exigent circumstances that would justify dispensing with the warrant requirement. There was no testimony indicating that an immediate search was necessary to prevent the defendant from accessing a weapon or destroying evidence, especially given that the defendant was already in custody and under police surveillance. The Court noted that the absence of such evidence dictated the conclusion that the body cavity search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. As the court stated, “[S]earch warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings, and absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned”. The Court declined to consider the People’s argument regarding the inevitable discovery doctrine, as it was not properly preserved at trial.