Winston v. Lee - Significance, Impact
Andrew J. Winston, County Sheriff; Aubrey M. Davis, Jr.
Rudolph Lee, Jr.
It is unconstitutional for a state to authorize surgery under general anesthesia on a person to retrieve evidence for a criminal prosecution.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Stacy F. Garrett III
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Joseph Ryland Winston
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
20 March 1985
It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a state to conduct a surgical intrusion into a robbery suspect for the purpose of retrieving a bullet when the surgery requires general anesthesia, the medical risks are in dispute, and there is no compelling need to recover the bullet in light of the availability of other evidence.
- Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
- United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- "Search and Seizure." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul: West Group, 1998.
- Steiker, Carol S. "Counter-Revolution in Constitutional Criminal Procedure? Two Audiences, Two Answers." Michigan Law Review, August 1996, p. 2466.
- Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education - Significance, Further Readings
- Inc. Westmoreland v. CBS - Significance, Impact, Out Of Court Settlements, Further Readings
- Winston v. Lee - Significance
- Winston v. Lee - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias