Rochin v. California
342 U.S. 165 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence obtained by state officers through methods that are so brutal and offensive to human dignity that they "shock the conscience" is inadmissible in a state criminal trial because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Based on information that Rochin was selling narcotics, three Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs went to his two-story home.
- The deputies found the outside door open, entered the house, and then forced open the door to Rochin's bedroom on the second floor.
- Inside, they found Rochin sitting on his bed next to his wife and saw two capsules on a nightstand.
- When an officer asked about the capsules, Rochin seized them and put them in his mouth.
- The three officers immediately jumped on Rochin and attempted, unsuccessfully, to pry the capsules from his mouth.
- The officers handcuffed Rochin and transported him to a hospital.
- At the officers' direction, a doctor forced an emetic solution through a tube into Rochin's stomach against his will, inducing vomiting.
- The two capsules, which were found to contain morphine, were recovered from the vomited matter.
Procedural Posture:
- Rochin was charged with violating the California Health and Safety Code and brought to trial in a California Superior Court, a court of first instance.
- The court, sitting without a jury, admitted the two morphine capsules into evidence over Rochin's objection.
- Rochin was convicted and sentenced to sixty days' imprisonment.
- Rochin, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the California District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding the police conduct unlawful but concluding it was bound by California Supreme Court precedent that did not exclude such evidence.
- Rochin petitioned the Supreme Court of California for a hearing.
- The Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court, denied the petition without opinion.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of evidence obtained by state police through forcible entry, a physical struggle, and the involuntary pumping of a suspect's stomach violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes, the use of evidence obtained in this manner violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The proceedings by which this conviction was obtained offend canons of decency and fairness and constitute conduct that shocks the conscience. Due process of law is not limited to specific prohibitions but encompasses a respect for personal immunities that are fundamental to a free society. The police conduct, including the illegal entry, the struggle to extract the capsules, and the forcible extraction of Rochin's stomach contents, is too close to the 'rack and the screw' to be constitutionally permissible. It would be a contradiction to hold that police cannot extract a forced verbal confession from a suspect's mind but can forcibly extract physical evidence from his stomach.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the conviction should be reversed, but on the grounds that the state's actions violated the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which should be applicable to the states. A person is compelled to be a witness against himself not only when forced to testify, but also when incriminating evidence is forcibly taken from his body. The majority's 'shocks the conscience' test is a nebulous and subjective standard that gives judges too much power and provides less protection for individual liberty than the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the evidence is inadmissible because it was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. If this privilege is a requirement of due process for a federal trial, it must also be a requirement for a state trial. Words taken from lips, capsules from a stomach, and blood from veins are all inadmissible if taken without consent. The majority's 'shocks the conscience' standard is not based on the Constitution but on the 'idiosyncrasies of the judges' and unfairly criticizes state courts while not requiring them to follow the clear command of the Fifth Amendment.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the "shocks the conscience" test under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as a basis for excluding evidence in state criminal proceedings. It predates the full application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule to the states in Mapp v. Ohio. The decision demonstrates the Court's willingness to intervene in state criminal procedure when police conduct is particularly egregious, even without relying on a specific provision of the Bill of Rights. The case also highlights the deep jurisprudential divide on the Court between a flexible due process approach and the doctrine of total incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Unlock the full brief for Rochin v. California