×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Forced Catheterization of Arrestee for Drug Test Upheld
The plaintiff was arrested for disorderly conduct and found to be pretty
drunk and in possession of a marijuana pipe; the jail wouldn't admit him
without a medical clearance. At the hospital he became uncooperative and
abusive. A doctor directed that a urine sample be obtained, and the
plaintiff tried and failed to provide one; the doctor ordered
catheterization; two police officers held him down for the procedure.
The plaintiff challenged the officers' use of force, but not the medical
clearance process. The medical defendants had been dismissed. Since
catheterization was not ordered by law enforcement, cases like Winston v.
Lee don't govern. The officers' actions were entirely reasonable for
Fourth Amendment purposes. A contrary holding "would place law enforcement
officers in the impossible position of having to second-guess the medical
judgments of emergency room physicians." (377) The Cruzan holding
concerning refusal of medical treatment has little application given the
state's substantial interest in "assuring the medical stability of its
pretrial detainees." (378) Further, the officers played only a minor role,
and had nothing to do with the decision to catheterize. See: Sullivan v.
Bornemann, 384 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2004).
drunk and in possession of a marijuana pipe; the jail wouldn't admit him
without a medical clearance. At the hospital he became uncooperative and
abusive. A doctor directed that a urine sample be obtained, and the
plaintiff tried and failed to provide one; the doctor ordered
catheterization; two police officers held him down for the procedure.
The plaintiff challenged the officers' use of force, but not the medical
clearance process. The medical defendants had been dismissed. Since
catheterization was not ordered by law enforcement, cases like Winston v.
Lee don't govern. The officers' actions were entirely reasonable for
Fourth Amendment purposes. A contrary holding "would place law enforcement
officers in the impossible position of having to second-guess the medical
judgments of emergency room physicians." (377) The Cruzan holding
concerning refusal of medical treatment has little application given the
state's substantial interest in "assuring the medical stability of its
pretrial detainees." (378) Further, the officers played only a minor role,
and had nothing to do with the decision to catheterize. See: Sullivan v.
Bornemann, 384 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2004).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login