INVOLUNTARY ERECTILE MEASUREMENT CASE

Just when you think you've seen it all:

A German appeals court wanted to keep a 81 year-old rape suspect over night in a university clinic for three days to determine whether or not he could have an erection (he claimed that he was impotent). The lower court had wanted more: it had wanted to keep him for seven days, and to determine both erectile and ejaculatory potential, but the appeals court balked at the longer time frame and the more intrusive methods required for both determinations, which as far as I can tell could be done without the consent of the suspect, since German criminal law allows nonconsensual medical exams such as the drawing of blood if the tests are important in an evidentiary sense and if there is "no reason to fear negative health consequences" (See § 81a StPO, here).

The constitutional court struck down the appeals court order, however, but did so in a way that avoided many of the significant constitutional questions: whether such an exam is unconstitutional because it offends the dignity of the suspect (Article 1) or his freedom over his person (Article 2). Instead, the court argued that the lower courts had failed to ground their ruling in a sufficient weighing of all the circumstances surrounding the exam. From par. 28:

The court neither took full account of all the circumstances in this case nor tested whether the measures were indispensible. [. . .] Further, given the conflicting testimony of experts, the court should have had some doubts about the expected probative value of the exam with respect to the erectile potential of the suspect; the court must attempt to take this doubt into account in its examination of the circumstances in their totality. Even the expert who was charged with performing the exam gave conflicting testimony on the significance of the suspect's cooperation: he said that a nocturnal exam is possible without the cooperation of the suspect, but his willingness to be cooperative would be significant. The appeals court did not resolve this contradiction. In addition, no comparable exams have taken place at the clinic in question, so the expert could be deficient with respect to experience in this area. The appeals court also failed to take account of the suspect's stated desire not to sleep in the clinic, even though this objection could influence the exam's success.

Denn der Senat hat Inhalt und Tragweite des Übermaßverbots verkannt; er hat es versäumt, eine Würdigung aller Umstände sowie eine Prüfung der Unerlässlichkeit der Maßnahme vorzunehmen. [. . .] Darüber hinaus hätten sich dem Senat auch angesichts der Angaben des Sachverständigen Zweifel am zu erwartenden Ertrag der Untersuchung zur Aufklärung der Erektionsfähigkeit des Beschwerdeführers aufdrängen und ebenfalls im Rahmen der gebotenen Gesamtabwägung berücksichtigt werden müssen. Bereits die Angaben des mit der Untersuchung beauftragten Sachverständigen zur Bedeutung der Mitwirkung des Beschwerdeführers waren widersprüchlich, weil dieser ausführte, eine Nachtschlafuntersuchung sei zwar gegen den Willen des Betroffenen möglich, jedoch sei dessen Kooperationsbereitschaft wesentlich. Diesen Widerspruch hat das Oberlandesgericht nicht aufgelöst. Hinzu kommt, dass in der Klinik des Sachverständigen bislang keine entsprechende Untersuchung gegen den Willen des zu Begutachtenden stattgefunden hat, so dass es dem Sachverständigen insoweit an Erfahrungswerten mangeln könnte. Ebenso wenig setzt sich das Oberlandesgericht mit dem Einwand des Beschwerdeführers, er beabsichtige nicht, in der Klinik zu schlafen, auseinander, obwohl dieser Einwand geeignet sein könnte, den Erfolg der Untersuchung zu beeinflussen.

So I suppose we will have to wait to find out whether involuntary nocturnal erectile measurements violate the human dignity safeguarded by Germany's Basic Law. Doesn't seem like a tough call to me, though.

You can read the full text of the case here, the court's press release here, and a news account here.

MORE: And for Scott: note the name of the defendant in the case, as reported by the court. I suppose to be truly Kafkaesque (rather than merely disquieting), the case would have had to take much longer to wind its way to an appeal, and the suspect would have to consent -- in an ambiguous fashion -- to the exam.