Defendants also cite to cases holding that hospital patients have a diminished expectation of privacy. (See, e.g. , Obj. at 7 (citing United States v. George , 987 F.2d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1993) ; United States v. John , No. CR-12-08082-001-PCT, 2014 WL 2863661 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2014) ).) Defendants are correct that hospital patients may have an expectation of privacy in a hospital emergency room that is less than in their home or car, depending on the circumstances of their visit and whether they share the room with other patients.

Courts have found that a defendant retains a lessened expectation of privacy in a hospital trauma room, such that police presence there is not unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. See Howard, 2011 WL 1459375, at *9; United States v. Davis, 657 F. Supp. 2d 630, 637-38 (D. Md. 2009), aff'd, 690 F.3d 226, 234 (4th Cir. 2012) (finding detective did not need a warrant to enter hospital's emergency room and was thus lawfully present); see also United States v. John, No. CR-12-08082-001-PCT-JAT, 2014 WL 2863661, at *8 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2014) (finding no expectation of privacy in hospital room where defendant was not yet under arrest but was under heightened police supervision). Under the specific facts presented in this case, the court finds that the officers' mere presence in the hospital operating room did not violate Clancy's Fourth Amendment rights.

"[A]n unreasonable search occurs when the intrusion violates both the subject's subjective and society's objective expectations of privacy." United States v. John, 2014 WL 2863661 at *7 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2014) (citing Katz, 389 U.S. 347). An unreasonable seizure occurs "only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, [the] freedom of movement is restrained."