Let me preface this with "In no way am I defending the actions of officers, doctors or judges involved in this incident as it has been reported." Just so Balog doesn't get the wrong idea. 
Discomfort and costs incurred incident to a search aren't legally considered punishment, are they? For example, kicking someone's door in to search their home is unpleasant and unwanted and undesirable and could be costly, but it is done in the course of search not as a punishment handed out by a court for a crime. I would think to get an 8th Amendment violation to stick it would have to be something handed out as a sentence.
Moreover, since cavity searches (albeit, probably not as enthusiastic as this one) are carried out on a regular basis in jails and prisons - in other words attendant to actual punishment - without legal objection then I think bringing an 8th Amendment case would be extremely difficult.
2 x-rays, three enemas (in public), two digital exams, and sedation under general anaethesiology (with attendant, admittedly minor, risk of DEATH) for a freaking colonoscopy (where they shove a camera into your colon, rather than the slender enema tube or a doctor's fat finger) - when the first X-ray alone informed the police in this case that there was no reasonable chance he was smuggling drugs in his rectum or intestines, and nearly ALL of it performed outside of the limits of the controlling search warrant. They had all the information they needed to show that their suspicion was completely unfounded - what else COULD this be but punishment for "contempt of cop"? They failed to find any drugs during a previous stop, lied about his "personal habits" to get a warrant to commit official sodomy this time, and went *WAY* over the top when their first, non-invasive search proved their warrantless suspicions to have no basis in fact. I'd think it was at least arguable, myself. The only way it would not be, IMO, is if it is as you suggest restricted solely to sentencing, and I'm not sure if that's the case - they asserted they had the legitimate authority to perform, and did in fact perform over objections, what can only be seen as punitive actions intended to inflict excessive distress on their victim. From
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law:
"Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. ...
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process." {emphasis added}
Regardless of 8th Amendment applicability, a 42USC1983 case seems like a slam-dunk against the county to me.
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3209305.shtml?cat=500#.UnpoOXC-rls has a copy of the actual suit, for those interested. If even a TENTH of the assertions contained therein are true, those officers and doctors need to go away for a LONG time. And Eckert is, IMO, going to be a wealthy man, at the county's expense (and ideally at the expense of the individual offenders, as well). And he needs to not EVER have pay a dime to the hospital over this.
