Petitioner
Antonio Richard Rochin
Respondent
State of California
Petitioner's Claim
That the police violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to not give self-incriminating testimony and his right to due process of law when theyinduced vomiting to obtain two capsules of morphine, which they used as evidence to convict him.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
Dolly Lee Butler, A. L. Wirin
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Howard S. Goldin
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, FelixFrankfurter (writing for the Court), Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Forman Reed,Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
None (Sherman Minton did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 January 1952
Decision
The Court found that the police violated Rochin's right to due process of lawby ordering a doctor to induce vomiting to obtain two capsules of morphine and therefore reversed his conviction.
Significance
The Court's decision that the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due processof law prohibits any "conduct that shocks the conscience" by the governmentestablished a standard for judging the constitutionality of police tactics for obtaining evidence. However, the Court's justification for its decision faced criticism from legal scholars and from other justices, including Justice Black, who concurred with the decision. Critics argued that standards such as"shocking to the conscience" were too vague and lacked real content.
Key Amendments in the Case
This case examined the Fifth Amendment's privilege against providing self-incriminating evidence as well as the Fourteenth Amendment's application of theFifth and other amendments to the state level. The Fifth Amendment guaranteesthat no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself." Arguably, the capsules pumped from Rochin amounted to a self-incriminating testimony forced from him by the arresting officers. Furthermore, theFourteenth Amendment grants this right to all citizens in all states, prohibiting any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law." Rochin contended that the police confiscated hisproperty without due process of law or without any legal proceeding, forcingself-incriminating evidence from his body.
The Arrest and Conviction of Rochin
With information that Antonio Rochin was peddling drugs, three police officers from Los Angeles went to his home on 1 July 1949. On arrival they noticed the front door open, so they entered and went upstairs, forcing their way intoRochin's room where they found Rochin and his wife. They also noticed two capsules on the night stand and asked, "Whose stuff is this?" Rochin quickly grabbed and swallowed the capsules, and the police began wrangling with him inan effort to retrieve the capsules. In the course of the struggle, they jumped on him and attempted to force the capsules out of him. After realizing theyhad failed, the police handcuffed Rochin and took him to a hospital, where they ordered a doctor to pump a solution into his stomach to induce vomiting.In Rochin's vomit, the police found the two capsules, which they confirmed contained morphine.
The police charged Rochin with possession of morphine and a California Superior Court convicted him, sentencing him to 60 days in prison. The two capsulesthe police forced from Rochin constituted the crucial evidence against him,even though Rochin objected to its admission in court. Upon appeal the district court upheld his conviction, though it did admit that the evidence was obtained by "unlawfully breaking into and entering defendant's room" and by "unlawfully assaulting, battering, torturing, and falsely imprisoning the defendant at the alleged hospital." The California Supreme Court also rejected Rochin's arguments, although two justices felt that they should hear the case andseverely criticized the police abuses and the lower court's decision.
The Supreme Court Hears the Case
With support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Rochin petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari or review of the lower courts' decisions and began hearing the case on 16 October 1951. The Supreme Court felt the case raised questions about the way California enforced its penal codes concerning the Fourteenth Amendment's call for due process at the state level. The Court set out to determine whether the arrest and conviction of Rochin "offend[ed] those canons of decency and fairness which expressthe notions of justice" as Justice Frankfurter, writing for the majority, quoted from Malinski v. New York (1945).
The Court likened the police's method of obtaining evidence from Rochin to coercing a confession from him. The Court reasoned that just as testimony forced by police brutality would not be admitted in court, likewise evidence forcibly extracted from a suspect's body should not be admitted. Though Justice Frankfurter conceded that the concept of due process of law was vague and changed over time, he nonetheless contended that the police clearly overstepped the boundaries of their job and human decency, bringing about the conviction ofRochin in a manner that violated a general sense of justice and fair play.
Although they agreed with Justice Frankfurter's conclusion, other justices argued that the due process of law line of reasoning carried too little constitutional weight, remaining murky and difficult to apply. Instead, they turnedto more concrete constitutional right violations to order the reversal of thelower courts' decisions. Unconvinced by the majority's reliance on due process, Justice Black argued that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the method used by the police to obtain the evidence from Rochin. Justice Black cited the Court's decision in Boyd v. United States (1886), reasoning "I think a person is compelled to be a witness against himself not only when he is compelled to testify, but also when as here, incriminating evidence is forcibly takenfrom him by a contrivance of modern science."
Furthermore, Justice Black also criticized the reasoning of the majority, maintaining that the Bill of Rights protects individual liberties much more effectively and permanently than recourse to vague notions of due process. Moreover, Justice Black argued that not only did the majority bypass the Bill of Rights, but also weakened it by basing its decision on the somewhat arbitrary concept of what shocks the conscience.
Justice Douglas also argued for the reversal of the lower courts' decisions,but felt that the majority's reasons were invalid. Instead, Justice Douglas agreed with Justice Black that the Fifth Amendment ban on compulsory self-incriminating testimony covered both forced confessions as well as forced evidence from the body. In addition, he warned that similar decisions would lead tothe erosion of citizens' rights at the state level, resulting from the Court's refusal to uphold the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and relying on fleeting and subjective Ideas.
Aftermath ofRochin v. California
Perhaps as a consequence of the vague subjective constitutional violation inthe Rochin case, later cases involving clearly illegal tactics for obtaining evidence did not result in conviction reversals. For example, in Irvine v. California (1954) the police broke into the suspect's home multiple times and illegally tapped his telephone. However, the U.S. Supreme Courtupheld the conviction. Hence, William Stuntz argued in The Yale Law Journal that "the justices' consciences would be shocked only where some grossly improper use of physical force was involved. Stealth and snooping, even when plainly illegal, would not be enough to violate due process." Stuntz also contended that since these notions of voluntariness and shocking to the conscience are vague, they have no real content and therefore the police can ignorethem and get around them.
Related Cases
Antonio Richard Rochin
Respondent
State of California
Petitioner's Claim
That the police violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to not give self-incriminating testimony and his right to due process of law when theyinduced vomiting to obtain two capsules of morphine, which they used as evidence to convict him.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
Dolly Lee Butler, A. L. Wirin
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Howard S. Goldin
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, FelixFrankfurter (writing for the Court), Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Forman Reed,Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
None (Sherman Minton did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 January 1952
Decision
The Court found that the police violated Rochin's right to due process of lawby ordering a doctor to induce vomiting to obtain two capsules of morphine and therefore reversed his conviction.
Significance
The Court's decision that the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due processof law prohibits any "conduct that shocks the conscience" by the governmentestablished a standard for judging the constitutionality of police tactics for obtaining evidence. However, the Court's justification for its decision faced criticism from legal scholars and from other justices, including Justice Black, who concurred with the decision. Critics argued that standards such as"shocking to the conscience" were too vague and lacked real content.
Key Amendments in the Case
This case examined the Fifth Amendment's privilege against providing self-incriminating evidence as well as the Fourteenth Amendment's application of theFifth and other amendments to the state level. The Fifth Amendment guaranteesthat no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself." Arguably, the capsules pumped from Rochin amounted to a self-incriminating testimony forced from him by the arresting officers. Furthermore, theFourteenth Amendment grants this right to all citizens in all states, prohibiting any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law." Rochin contended that the police confiscated hisproperty without due process of law or without any legal proceeding, forcingself-incriminating evidence from his body.
The Arrest and Conviction of Rochin
With information that Antonio Rochin was peddling drugs, three police officers from Los Angeles went to his home on 1 July 1949. On arrival they noticed the front door open, so they entered and went upstairs, forcing their way intoRochin's room where they found Rochin and his wife. They also noticed two capsules on the night stand and asked, "Whose stuff is this?" Rochin quickly grabbed and swallowed the capsules, and the police began wrangling with him inan effort to retrieve the capsules. In the course of the struggle, they jumped on him and attempted to force the capsules out of him. After realizing theyhad failed, the police handcuffed Rochin and took him to a hospital, where they ordered a doctor to pump a solution into his stomach to induce vomiting.In Rochin's vomit, the police found the two capsules, which they confirmed contained morphine.
The police charged Rochin with possession of morphine and a California Superior Court convicted him, sentencing him to 60 days in prison. The two capsulesthe police forced from Rochin constituted the crucial evidence against him,even though Rochin objected to its admission in court. Upon appeal the district court upheld his conviction, though it did admit that the evidence was obtained by "unlawfully breaking into and entering defendant's room" and by "unlawfully assaulting, battering, torturing, and falsely imprisoning the defendant at the alleged hospital." The California Supreme Court also rejected Rochin's arguments, although two justices felt that they should hear the case andseverely criticized the police abuses and the lower court's decision.
The Supreme Court Hears the Case
With support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Rochin petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari or review of the lower courts' decisions and began hearing the case on 16 October 1951. The Supreme Court felt the case raised questions about the way California enforced its penal codes concerning the Fourteenth Amendment's call for due process at the state level. The Court set out to determine whether the arrest and conviction of Rochin "offend[ed] those canons of decency and fairness which expressthe notions of justice" as Justice Frankfurter, writing for the majority, quoted from Malinski v. New York (1945).
The Court likened the police's method of obtaining evidence from Rochin to coercing a confession from him. The Court reasoned that just as testimony forced by police brutality would not be admitted in court, likewise evidence forcibly extracted from a suspect's body should not be admitted. Though Justice Frankfurter conceded that the concept of due process of law was vague and changed over time, he nonetheless contended that the police clearly overstepped the boundaries of their job and human decency, bringing about the conviction ofRochin in a manner that violated a general sense of justice and fair play.
Although they agreed with Justice Frankfurter's conclusion, other justices argued that the due process of law line of reasoning carried too little constitutional weight, remaining murky and difficult to apply. Instead, they turnedto more concrete constitutional right violations to order the reversal of thelower courts' decisions. Unconvinced by the majority's reliance on due process, Justice Black argued that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the method used by the police to obtain the evidence from Rochin. Justice Black cited the Court's decision in Boyd v. United States (1886), reasoning "I think a person is compelled to be a witness against himself not only when he is compelled to testify, but also when as here, incriminating evidence is forcibly takenfrom him by a contrivance of modern science."
Furthermore, Justice Black also criticized the reasoning of the majority, maintaining that the Bill of Rights protects individual liberties much more effectively and permanently than recourse to vague notions of due process. Moreover, Justice Black argued that not only did the majority bypass the Bill of Rights, but also weakened it by basing its decision on the somewhat arbitrary concept of what shocks the conscience.
Justice Douglas also argued for the reversal of the lower courts' decisions,but felt that the majority's reasons were invalid. Instead, Justice Douglas agreed with Justice Black that the Fifth Amendment ban on compulsory self-incriminating testimony covered both forced confessions as well as forced evidence from the body. In addition, he warned that similar decisions would lead tothe erosion of citizens' rights at the state level, resulting from the Court's refusal to uphold the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and relying on fleeting and subjective Ideas.
Aftermath ofRochin v. California
Perhaps as a consequence of the vague subjective constitutional violation inthe Rochin case, later cases involving clearly illegal tactics for obtaining evidence did not result in conviction reversals. For example, in Irvine v. California (1954) the police broke into the suspect's home multiple times and illegally tapped his telephone. However, the U.S. Supreme Courtupheld the conviction. Hence, William Stuntz argued in The Yale Law Journal that "the justices' consciences would be shocked only where some grossly improper use of physical force was involved. Stealth and snooping, even when plainly illegal, would not be enough to violate due process." Stuntz also contended that since these notions of voluntariness and shocking to the conscience are vague, they have no real content and therefore the police can ignorethem and get around them.
This is conduct that shocks the conscience. Illegally breaking into the privacy of the petitioner, the struggle to open his mouth and remove what was there, the forcible extraction of his stomach's contents--this courseof proceeding by agents of government to obtain evidence is bound to offendeven hardened sensibilities.
Related Cases
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
- Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401 (1945).
- Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947).
- Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128 (1954).
User Comments Add a comment…