bodily integrity in only very limited circumstances involving such things as abortions, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), end-of-life decisions, Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990), birth control decisions, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), and instances where individuals are subject to dangerous or invasive procedures where their personal liberty is being restrained, see, e.g., Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952) (determining that a detainee’s bodily integrity was violated when police ordered doctors to pump his stomach to obtain evidence of drugs); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff argues that he has a cognizable
holding that police may approach citizen and ask that he roll down the window as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave holding that an individuals bodily integrity was violated where a citizen was beaten to death while in police custody holding that newspaper had sufficient interest to obtain access to police investigative files and autopsy report regarding suspect who had been shot to death while in police custody holding that appellant was not harmed where defendant never asserted that he was not a us citizen and no evidence in the record suggested he was not a us citizen holding that a vehicle was readily mobile even though it was locked and its owner was in police custody because other individuals might also have access to the car