United States v. Fowlkes, No. 11-50273 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") agents and Long Beach Police Department ("LBPD") officers obtained warrants for wiretaps on two phones in the Summer of 2006. Officers intercepted communications pursuant to the wiretap, which led them to conclude that defendant was arranging a drug deal. Based on information initially obtained through the wiretaps, LBPD officers placed defendant under surveillance and eventually arrested defendant for felony drug possession. At intake, the officers strip searched defendant in the jail's strip search room. Five officers observed the strip search. The officers instructed defendant to remove his clothing and face the far wall of the room as they watched him. Defendant was instructed to bend over, spread his buttocks, and cough, but according to one of the observers, defendant instead moved his hand toward his right buttock. Instructed to repeat the procedure, defendant made a quick movement to his buttocks area with his hand and appeared "to be forcing or forcibly pushing an item inward." Defendant appealed his conviction for drug distribution and possession with intent to distribute, raising a number of issues on appeal, but the Ninth Circuit found only one had merit: that the forcible removal of drugs from defendant's rectum by officers without medical training or a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court concluded that the evidence obtained "from this brutal and physically invasive search" should have been suppressed. Therefore, the Court vacated defendant's conviction in part, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding, the panel held that the forcible removal of drugs from the defendant’s rectum during a body cavity search at the Long Beach Jail, without medical training or a warrant, violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the evidence obtained from this brutal and physically invasive search should have been suppressed. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motions to suppress evidence obtained through wiretaps, to suppress evidence seized from his apartment, to suppress cocaine base and marijuana seized from his car, to dismiss the indictment on a claim of evidence tampering, and to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds following a mistrial. Dissenting in part, Court of International Trade Judge Restani disagreed with the majority’s decision to suppress the evidence seized during the jailhouse search because she believes the facts found by the district court render the warrantless search and seizure reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 28, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.