context: Under these circumstances, Dr. Tan's decision to per form the initial examination of plaintiffs bowel condition in his cell does not evince the requisite state of mind required for an Eighth Amendment violation. For these same reasons, the circumstances of the examination do not give rise to a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 282 F.3d 189, 189
citation_a.parenthetical: defendant police officer's conduct in secretly videotaping unclothed female volunteer for a police training video "shocks the conscience" and was "unjustifiable by any governmental interest"
citation_a.sentence: See Webb v. Goldstein, 117 F.Supp.2d 289, 298 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (plaintiff failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on right to privacy in medical condition); but see Poe, 282 F.3d at 189 (defendant police officer’s conduct in secretly videotaping unclothed female volunteer for a police training video “shocks the conscience” and was “unjustifiable by any governmental interest”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 117 F.Supp.2d 289, 298
citation_b.parenthetical: plaintiff failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on right to privacy in medical condition
citation_b.sentence: See Webb v. Goldstein, 117 F.Supp.2d 289, 298 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (plaintiff failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on right to privacy in medical condition); but see Poe, 282 F.3d at 189 (defendant police officer’s conduct in secretly videotaping unclothed female volunteer for a police training video “shocks the conscience” and was “unjustifiable by any governmental interest”).