William J. Brennan

“ The fact that the Commonwealth has available such substantial evidence of the origin of the bullet restricts the need for the Commonwealth to compel respondent to undergo the contemplated surgery. [10]
In weighing the various factors in this case, we therefore reach the same conclusion as the courts below. The operation sought will intrude substantially on respondent's protected interests. The medical risks of the operation, although apparently not extremely severe, are a subject of considerable dispute; the very uncertainty militates against finding the operation to be "reasonable." ”

“ In addition, the intrusion on respondent's privacy interests entailed by the operation can only be characterized as severe. On the other hand, although the bullet may turn out to be useful to the Commonwealth in prosecuting respondent, the Commonwealth has failed to demonstrate a compelling need for it. We believe that in these circumstances the Commonwealth has failed to demonstrate that it would be "reasonable" under the terms of the Fourth Amendment to search for evidence of this crime by means of the contemplated surgery. ”

“ Beyond these standards, Schmerber 's inquiry considered a number of other factors in determining the "reasonableness" of the blood test. A crucial factor in analyzing the magnitude of the intrusion in Schmerber is the extent to which the procedure may threaten the safety or health of the individual. " [For] most people [a blood test] involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain." ”

“ We also noted that " [because] we are dealing with intrusions into the human body rather than with state interferences with property relationships or private papers--'houses, papers, and effects'--we write on a clean slate." 384 U.S., at 767-768. The intrusion perhaps implicated Schmerber's most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy, and the Court recognized that Fourth Amendment analysis thus required a discerning inquiry into the facts and circumstances to determine whether the intrusion was justifiable. The Fourth Amendment neither forbids nor permits all such intrusions ”

“ However, Schmerber cautioned: "That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States ['] minor intrusions into an individual's body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions." Id., at 772. In this case, the Commonwealth of Virginia seeks to compel the respondent Rudolph Lee, who is suspected of attempting to commit armed robbery, to undergo a surgical procedure under a general anesthetic for removal of a bullet lodged in his chest. ”

“ We granted certiorari, 466 U.S. 942 (1984) , to consider whether a State may consistently with the Fourth Amendment compel a suspect to undergo surgery of this kind in a search for evidence of a crime.
II The Fourth Amendment protects "expectations of privacy," see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) --the individual's legitimate expectations that in certain places and at certain times he has "the right to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." ”

“ The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that "the specific physical risks from putting [respondent] under general anesthesia may therefore be considered minimal." 717 F.2d, at 900. Testimony had shown that "the general risks of harm or death from general anesthesia are quite low, and that [respondent] was in the statistical group of persons with the lowest risk of injury from general anesthesia." Ibid.↑ . One expert testified that this would be "minor" surgery. See App. 99. The question whether the surgery is to be characterized in medical terms as "major" or "minor" is not controlling. ”

“ Moreover, all reasonable medical precautions were taken and no unusual or untested procedures were employed in Schmerber; the procedure was performed "by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices." Ibid. Notwithstanding the existence of probable cause, a search for evidence of a crime may be unjustifiable if it endangers the life or health of the suspect. [4]
Another factor is the extent of intrusion upon the individual's dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity. ”

“ Because the case fell within the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, no warrant was necessary. Ibid. The search was not more intrusive than reasonably necessary to accomplish its goals. ”

“ Somewhat different issues would be raised if the use of a general anesthetic became necessary because of the patient's refusal to cooperate. Cf. State v. Lawson, supra.↑ . There are also some questions concerning the probative value of the bullet, even if it could be retrieved. The evidentiary value of the bullet depends on a comparison between markings, if any, on the bullet in respondent's shoulder and markings, if any, found on a test bullet that the police could fire from Watkinson's gun. ”