Rochin v. California - Significance, Key Amendments In The Case, The Arrest And Conviction Of Rochin, The Supreme Court Hears The Case

petitioner justices police obtain

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 they induced 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, Felix Frankfurter (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 law by ordering a doctor to induce vomiting to obtain two capsules of morphine and therefore reversed his conviction.

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).

Additional Topics

Rochin v. California - 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 into Rochin'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 swall…

Rochin v. California - 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 Co…

Rochin v. California - Aftermath Ofrochin V. California

Perhaps as a consequence of the vague subjective constitutional violation in the 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 Court upheld the conviction. Hence,…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.