Here's a weird case. A man is refusing to have a bullet removed from his head, because it may help convict him of the crime in which he allegedly received it. It's certainly a novel legal theory by his lawyers, but given the precedence of breathalizers and having to pee in a cup, I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on.

If Mr. Olive has used some better ammo, this would be a moot issue.

There are differences between breathalyzers and cup peeing, and surgical removal of a bullet. One difference is the relative intrusiveness of each search and seizure. In each case evidence is obtained from the suspect's person but in the case of the bullet, obtaining the evidence requires the suspect to undergo surgery. Also, cup peeing and breathalyzers are typically used on drivers and the requirement that drivers submit to such seizures is usually based on the legal theory that having a driver's license is a privilege granted by the state. As a condition of obtaining the state's permission to drive on roads, we agree to consent to such tests in the appropriate circumstances. In the bullet case, the evidence is sought for purely criminal purposes and the full force of the Fourth Amendment applies to protect the suspect from unreasonable searches and seizures. Beyond the Fourth Amendment, he may even have a due process argument against the search to protect the dignity of his person because surgery is required. Those are reasons why the defense does have a leg to stand on. Judges will have to balance the strength of the prosecution's justifications against the defendant's rights. That being said, your instincts regarding the bottom line are probably correct. I've had one case myself where a forceful search and seizure was upheld by the Court of Appeal, although that involved the police removing something from between the client's cheeks, and I'm not talking about those on his face. Not as intrusive as surgery but a lot less dignified for all concerned.

Yep, they can't force a defendant in a criminal trial to testify against himself, and forcing someone to remove a bullet from their head because they fear being convicted in a court of law basically trashes constitutional protections.

Sounds like they have sufficient evidence to convict without the slug.

Let him live with it in prison. Make removal a one time offer.