Rochin v. California
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Rochin v. California'', 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
that added behavior that "
shocks the conscience Shocks the conscience is a phrase used as a legal standard in the United States and Canada. An action is understood to "shock the conscience" if it is "grossly unjust to the observer." United States In US law, the phrase typically describes whether ...
" into tests of what violates
due process Due process of law is application by state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to the case so all legal rights that are owed to the person are respected. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual pers ...
clause of the 14th Amendment. This
balancing test A balancing test is any judicial test in which the jurists weigh the importance of multiple factors in a legal case. Proponents of such legal tests argue that they allow a deeper consideration of complex issues than a bright-line rule can allow. B ...
is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner.


Background

On July 1, 1949, three
Los Angeles County Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, and sometimes abbreviated as L.A. County, is the most populous county in the United States and in the U.S. state of California, with 9,861,224 residents estimated as of 2022. It is the ...
deputy sheriffs entered the Rochins' residence without a search warrant and forcibly entered Rochin's room on the second floor. Upon entering the room, the deputies noticed two capsules on the night stand. Rochin immediately swallowed the capsules after Deputy Jack Jones asked him, "Whose stuff is this?" Jones then grabbed and squeezed Rochin by the neck, as well as shoving his fingers in Rochin's mouth as he attempted to eject the capsules.''People v. Rochin (1950) 101 CA2d 140''
/ref> The deputies, unable to obtain the capsules, handcuffed and took Rochin to Angeles Emergency Hospital where he was strapped to an operating table and had a tube forcibly placed in his mouth and into his stomach and given an emetic solution, whereupon he vomited the capsules into a bucket. The deputies then retrieved the capsules and tested them to be
morphine Morphine is a strong opiate that is found naturally in opium, a dark brown resin in poppies (''Papaver somniferum''). It is mainly used as a analgesic, pain medication, and is also commonly used recreational drug, recreationally, or to make ...
. Subsequently, this was submitted as evidence, and Rochin was found guilty of violating
California Health and Safety Code The California Health and Safety Code is the codification of general statutory law covering the subject areas of health and safety in the state of California. It is one of the 29 California Codes and was originally signed into law by the Governor ...
ยง 11500 as having an unlawful possession of morphine. Rochin appealed his case on the basis that his rights, guaranteed to him by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution and by Article I(1)(13)(19) of the California Constitution rendered the evidence inadmissible, and that the forced stomach pumping was unconstitutionally compelled self-incrimination. The appeals court denied his defense arguing that the evidence was admissible, despite the egregious behavior of the officers, as it was " competent evidence," and the courts are not allowed to question the means in which it was obtained. As the court wrote, "illegally obtained evidence is admissible on a criminal charge in this state."


Decision

The court voted in an 8-0 decision (Minton abstained) to overturn the decision. Justice Frankfurter wrote the majority opinion which struck down the prior conviction, arguing that the brutality of the means used to extract the evidence from Rochin "shocks the conscience," and it clearly violates the due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Frankfurter also admitted the term "due process" was nebulous but asserted that it existed to preserve the fairness and integrity of the system and that society expects judges to act impartially and to take into account precedence and social context. The court quoted from the decision of the California Supreme Court, in which two justices dissented, saying, Justice Douglas and Black both wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that the lower court's decision should have been overturned based on the Fifth Amendment liberty from self incrimination. Both justices believed that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "due process" incorporated that right. The justices' opinions also offered much criticism of Frankfurter's opinion for the court. Douglas rebuked the court for suddenly declaring that the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, which had not been an issue up until then, suddenly violated the "decencies of civilized conduct."''Ibid'', page 8
/ref> Black disagreed with the logic in the majority as being contradictory. He argued the opinion enabled the court to nullify the California state law of using illegal evidence based on due process because its application, "shocks the conscience," but then admonishes judges to be impartial and use the society's standards in judgment.


References


Further reading

*


External links

* {{US4thAmendment, incorporation 1952 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court United States criminal due process case law American Civil Liberties Union litigation 1952 in California Legal history of California