had the effect of coercing Mr. Talkington to voluntarily
consent to the search of 409 Amherst.
VII. SUPPORT FOR JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
In concluding its opinion, the circuit court requested "that
the district court address whether, in its view, there is
sufficient evidence to support the judgment of conviction if it
is ultimately determined that the initial warrantless entry
into the Talkington home was permissible but that the later
search based on consent was not." Id. at 1050. We find that, in
the scenario posed by the circuit court, the judgment of
conviction would be supportable. If the fruits of the consent
search are suppressed, the Government still has the following
evidence: (1) the testimony of Michael Pulliam who printed the
counterfeit money and sold it to the Defendant; (2) testimony
of Jeffrey Irving concerning Flynt Talkington having procured
$63,000 in counterfeit money from the Defendant's residence;
(3) the sweep search of the Defendant's residence following the
warrantless entry which produced five grocery bags full of
counterfeit money, in plain view, as viewed by Agent Steve
Fermon; and (4) the Defendant's "furtive movement" in the chair
which produced a small amount of counterfeit money as secured
by Agent Canavit. We find that, in this Court's view, the
admissible evidence would be sufficient to support a judgment
of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 472, even if the fruits of the
consent search must be suppressed.
In conclusion, the Court feels compelled to address a number
of issues raised by the reviewing court's opinion. This Court
fears that the circuit court labored under some misconceptions
and a misreading of the record in this case. Perhaps this
explains the undue tenor and tone of the circuit court's
opinion, which often reached intemperate levels with regard to
this Court's handling of these proceedings.
A. Search of Mrs. Talkington
The circuit court and this Court are troubled by the fact
that Mrs. Talkington was searched — to any extent — in light
of the absence of a similar search of Raymond. We do not mean
to trivialize the search of Mrs. Talkington. However, the
circuit court used the term "body cavity search" to describe
the type of search performed on Betty Talkington. It has become
clear through the supplemental hearing that no such search took
place. Though the search of Mrs. Talkington is only tangential
to the issues involved here, we believe it necessary and
important to use this case to point out the need for all courts
to be precise in the language they use to describe the various
forms of searches administered by law enforcement personnel.
According to case law and the evidence presented in this
cause, the following types of searches are used:
A physical body cavity search is one performed only by
medical personnel, in a clinical setting, and involves the
physical (as opposed to visual) probing of body cavities beyond
the surface of the skin.
A visual body cavity search is one in which the suspect is
required to spread the lips of the vagina and/or the cheeks of
the buttocks to allow visual inspection of those body cavities.
This search is generally performed by non-medical personnel. As
a physical body cavity search is much more intrusive, a court
must clearly establish whether visual or physical probing was
A full strip search involves a complete disrobing of the
individual and involves a visual inspection only.
Also, there is a partial strip search which, as the name
implies, involves partial disrobing and visual inspection.*fn2
A number of cases have addressed issues concerning these
terms. Some of these cases involved policy statements of
governmental agencies defining these terms. See, e.g., Fann v.
City of Cleveland, 616 F. Supp. 305, 309 n. 1 (N.D. Ohio 1985)
("strip search" defined by Ohio Revised Code as "inspection of
the genitalia, buttocks, breasts, or undergarments . . .
preceded by the removal or rearrangement of some or all of the
person's clothing"); Thorne v. Jones, 585 F. Supp. 910, 913
(M.D.La. 1984) (prison departmental regulation defines "strip
search" as "a purely visual search . . . and does not involve
touching . . . by department employees. Limited manual opening
of a body cavity . . . is permitted [but must be done by the
one being searched]. The strip search does not involve probing
inside the cavity."), rev'd on other grounds, 765 F.2d 1270
(5th Cir. 1985).
Other cases point out the confusion which arises when these
terms are used, but not defined. See, e.g., Salinas v. Breier,
695 F.2d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1982) ("At trial much confusion
existed even among highranking officers as to the definitions
of `strip search' and `body cavity search.'"), cert. denied,
464 U.S. 835, 104 S.Ct. 119, 78 L.Ed.2d 118 (1983); Security &
Law Enforcement Employees v. Carey, 737 F.2d 187, 192 (2d Cir.
1984) ("The district court used the term `strip frisk search'
to describe a search including a visual examination of the anal
and genital areas of the person searched. We will refer to this
latter type of inspection as a `visual body cavity search'
rather than a `strip frisk search' since this latter
terminology tends to evoke images of touching, probing or
physically intruding into the body. It is important for
analytical purposes to note that none of the searches . . .
herein involved any touches, probes or other bodily
intrusions."); see also 3 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure: A
Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.5(e), at 734-35 (2d ed.
1987) (At least in the context of border searches: "The
permissible limits of an otherwise lawful strip search are not
even exceeded when the rectal cavity is visually penetrated.").
Finally, we note that in Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago,
723 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1983), a search very similar to that made
here was referred to by the circuit court merely as a "strip
search." The Chicago Police Department search policy required a
female arrestee to:
1) lift her blouse or sweater and to unhook and
lift her brassiere to allow a visual inspection of
the breast area, to replace these articles of
clothing and then
2) to pull up her skirt or dress or to lower her
pants and pull down any undergarments, to squat
two or three times facing the detention aid and to
bend over at the waist to permit visual inspection
of the vaginal and anal area.
Id. at 1267.