United States v. Samuel Brown
This text of 421 F.2d 181 (United States v. Samuel Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The facts in this case are almost identical to those in United States v. Castle, 409 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1969). Both involved rectal searches by customs inspectors. In both, the inspectors learned from reliable informants that the defendant was smuggling in heroin concealed in his rectal cavity. In both, a strip search of the defendant confirmed the informants’ testimony. In both, the body cavity search was conducted by approved medical techniques, in a hospital, with as little pain and as little invasion of human dignity as is possible, given the nature of the search involved. The search was conducted on October 24, 1968.
We have concluded that under our precedents there was the necessary “clear indication” to justify the search, that the search was properly conducted, and that the conviction must be affirmed. Henderson v. United States, 390 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1967); Rivas v. United States, 368 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1966); cf. Blackford v. United States, 247 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1962).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
421 F.2d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-samuel-brown-ca9-1969.