http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/140800c.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And the wrap up....I would hold that a warrantless body-cavity search, even though conducted incident to a lawful arrest, violates the Fourth Amendment unless (1) the police have a clear indication that evidence is located within a suspect's body, (2) the police reasonably believe that the evidence would be destroyed during the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, (2) and (3) the search is conducted in a reasonable manner. See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770-71.
Because no warrant was obtained, and because no exception to the warrant requirement is supported by the record, the visual body-cavity search of the appellant at the fire station was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. As the Court of Appeals held, the fruits of the illegal search should have been suppressed. Because I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, I dissent.
Here is the other side:
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/140800a.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
....the Code of Criminal Procedure excused the arresting officer from having to obtain an arrest warrant, McGee's arrest was valid. Further, the visual body cavity search in this instance was a reasonable search incident to arrest, thereby excusing the officer's need to obtain a search warrant. The Court of Appeals was incorrect in holding that the cocaine should have been suppressed. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
