Winston v. Lee
1985 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Winston v. Lee?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that a compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion would be "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, even if likely to produce evidence of a crime.
Winston v. Lee | |
---|---|
Argued October 31, 1984 Decided March 20, 1985 | |
Full case name | Andrew J. Winston, Sheriff and Aubrey M. Davis, Jr. v. Rudolph Lee, Jr. |
Citations | 470 U.S. 753 (more) 105 S.Ct. 1611; 84 L. Ed. 2d 662; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 76 |
Case history | |
Prior | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |
Holding | |
A compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion would be "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Brennan, joined by Burger, White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor |
Concurrence | Burger |
Concurrence | Blackmun, Rehnquist (in the judgment) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV |
The reasonableness of surgical intrusions beneath the skin depends on a case-by-case approach, in which the individual's interests in privacy and security are weighed against society's interests in conducting the procedure to obtain evidence for fairly determining guilt or innocence. The appropriate framework of analysis for such cases is provided in Schmerber v. California (1966), which held that a State may, over the suspect's protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving without violating the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.