WINSTON V. LEE
470 U.S. 753 (1985)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Lee (D) brought an action in Federal District Court to enjoin a state court ordered pending operation to seize a bullet in D, on Fourth Amendment grounds. The district court enjoined the surgery. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
FACTS: Watkinson was closing his shop and observed someone armed with a gun coming toward him from across the street. Watkinson was also armed and when he drew his gun, the other person told him to freeze. Watkinson then fired at the other person, who returned his fire. Watkinson was hit in the legs. The other individual, who appeared to be wounded in his left side, ran from the scene. The police arrived on the scene sand Watkinson was taken by ambulance to the emergency room. Twenty minutes later, Police discovered Lee (D) eight blocks from where the earlier shooting occurred. D was suffering from a gunshot wound to his left chest area and told the police that he had been shot when two individuals attempted to rob him. While in the emergency room, Watkinson identified D as the man who shot him. D was charged. The Commonwealth (P) moved in state court for an order directing D to undergo surgery to remove an object thought to be a bullet lodged under his left collarbone. An expert testified that it would require an incision of slightly more than one-half inch, could be performed under local anesthesia, and would result in 'no danger on the basis that there's no general anesthesia employed.' The trial judge granted the motion to compel surgery. D petitioned the Virginia Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition and/or a writ of habeas corpus, both of which were denied. D then brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin the pending operation on Fourth Amendment grounds. The court refused. Just before the surgery the X rays revealed that the bullet was in fact lodged approximately one-inch-deep in muscular tissue in D's chest and a general anesthetic would be desirable for medical reasons. D moved the state trial court for a rehearing based on the new evidence. The state trial court denied the rehearing, and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed. D then reapplied at the federal District Court. It enjoined the threatened surgery. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment