Criminal procedure principles and practice

ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA Summary of the Facts - On the morning of July 1, 1949, three deputy sheriffs from Los Angeles County believed that Rochin was selling narcotics. The sheriffs found Rochin's door open, and entered the premises in which he lived with his mother, common-law wife, and siblings. When the officers forced open the second floor door (Rochin's room) they found him sitting partially undressed on the side of the bed while his wife was lying beside him. On the night stand next to the bed the officers found two-capsules. When the officers asked Rochin about the capsules, he grabbed them and put them in his mouth. Subsequently, trying to prevent him from swallowing said capsules, a struggle ensued, but the officers were unable to extract the materials. Rochin was then handcuffed and taken to a hospital. Once there, under the direction of the officers, the medical personnel forced an emetic solution through a tube they inserted into Rochin's stomach -- all against his will. This solution produced vomiting and the two capsules were expressed and alter found to contain morphine (Rochin v California).

Rochin was convicted and sentenced to 60 days' jail time with the primary evidence against him being the two capsules. These capsules were admitted as evidence over the petitioner's objection, although the means of obtaining them was not at odds. Rochin then appealed his case based on the notion that his Constitutional Rights had been violated and the evidence should have been ruled inadmissible. The appellate Court, however, believed that the evidence was admissible, but did agree that the behavior of the officers was egregious. "Illegally obtained evidence is admissible on a criminal charge in this state" (People vs. Rochin, 1950).

Issue -The Supreme Court granted certiorari because there was a serious question about the limitations in which due process was followed and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments violated by law enforcement. Thus, did the police forcing Rochin to vomit violate his 5th Amendment right and due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

Analysis and Evaluation - Rochin Questions -- (1-2) Did the actions of the Police shock the conscience of a reasonable person? Did it shock your conscious? Yes, the actions of law enforcement in this case were shocking for several reasons. First, while there may have been mitigating factors that led the police to believe that Rochin was dealing drugs, the very basis of the Constitutional guarantee of privacy and protection was violated by entering his home without a search warrant, further exaggerating this by forcibly entering his room on the second floor. They had no credible reason to even be in his home, and thus anything found without even probably cause should have been thrown out. Second, the idea of using physical force to try to cause Rochin to expel the capsules, then arresting him and taking him to a medical facility in which he was forced to vomit up the capsules borders on torture. In no case was there an indication that he was legally arrested. Third, even in the cultural conscious of the time, the rough and violent nature of the police and the medical community was shocking as a basic lack of understanding of constitutional protection. Thus, the actions of law enforcement violated any sort of due process by: lack of warrant, lack of proper arrest, and placing Rochin in a position in which he was physically and mentally abused without probably cause.

(3) Are "shocks to the conscience" offending the "community's sense of fair play and decency," etc. A matter of personal opinion or objective tests? Each community is different and has different standards. What society would consider permissible in 1850 would not fit with the 1950s, for instance. However, in the case of Rochin, the very idea of illegally entering his home, exuding both mental and physical torture, and obtaining evidence illegally are not cultural or community-based decisions -- they are part of the Constitutional guarantees and a system of checks and balances that prevents the United States from turning into a tyranny or police state. Regardless of the findings in the capsules -- the manner in which the substance was found was patently illegal. The point of due process is to guarantee fundamental rights and expectations -- otherwise, without these, law enforcement may be capricious.

(4) How did Justice Frankfurter define and defend the fundamental fairness doctrine? In Rochin, Justice Frankfurter applied the fundamental fairness doctrine by delineating the general fairness of the case using the Bill of Rights as primary source in which either the Constitution was or was not followed. Fundamental fairness, according to Frankfurter, asks if it is reasonable that society would view what happened to Rochin as proper and if fundamentally the manner in which he was treated was improper -- in fact so ingrained in the basis of American society that what happened violated the nature of an "implicit" standard of legal and governmental behavior (Samaha, p. 38).

(5) Q4- How did Justice Black define and defend the incorporation doctrine? Black found that the law must be faithful in its adherence to the Bill of Rights because it is a fundamental protection of civil liberty. Essentially, Black was stating that ideas of culture and society may change over time, but that there are certainly fundamental ideas that do not… just because something offends or does not offend a state law at a specific time, without allowing for the Bill of Rights to be incorporated into state law based on individual rights, the nature of the Constitution would be imperiled (Samaha, p. 38).

Recommendations - In American Constitutional process, American Courts have applied portions of the Bill of Rights to state governments and state constitutions. Prior to 1925, for instance, the Bill of Rights was said to apply only to the Federal system; however under the incorporation doctrine, most of the provisos of the Bill of Rights also applied to state and local governments. The very notion is central to the idea that the Constitution applies to the entire government of the United States, that states may not selectively decide to igrnore certain portions. For example, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was decided to be incorporate in 1949 (Wolf v Colorado), so it stands to reason that Justice Black would define the use of the Bill of Rights as fundamental in Rochin (See: (Wolf v. Colorado, 1949). Thus, the Constitution, while a growing document, should have relevance that is neither time nor location based. The equal protection clause can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. It simply states that, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law" (Hudson, 2002).

Case 2 -- Wyoming v Houghton Summary of the Facts -- Summary of the Facts - A vehicle was stopped by a police officer for a broken brake light and the driver was observed to have a syringe in his front pocket. The driver admitted that he used it to "shoot drugs," and as soon as backup arrived the passengers were ordered to leave the car. One of the people in the car gave a false name, but while looking through her purse, the officer found her driver's license and thus her correct name. Continuing this search, the officer found a syringe which included methamphetamine. Upon examining the woman, fresh needle marks were observed and the person was arrested. Houghton, the person's real name, wanted the purse search suppressed, but the trial court convicted her. When appealed, the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed because the police lacked probably because to search her purse based on the driver's possession of a syringe (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999).

Issue - What was the probable cause to search the passengers who, in effect, were not violating any law (e.g. they did not own the car with the faulty light nor was anything illegal observed on their persons)?

Analysis and Evaluation -- (1) The Court reversed the Wyoming Court's reversal saying that if there is not a specific example in the Constitution then an additional evaluation must be made. Because it was reasonable that something was amiss, the officer had the right to search the purse and it thus was legal based on a "balancing of relative interests" and reasonable that someone was hiding contraband. (2) The rule was applied to the purse because under a previous 1925 case there was probable cause that there was additional contraband within the vehicle itself (Carrol v U.S.) then permitted searches of all containers. (3) Justice Stevens dissented believing that precedent did not exist because there was no presumption that anyone in the vehicle was holding illegal materials. Since Houghton did not appear to be doing anything illegal, the purse should not have been searched. (4) Justice Breyer argued that searches of purses, wallets or other materials should be treated as extension of searches based on a heightened probability that there was an expectation of illegal activity. (Samaha, p. 223).

Recommendations -- Under a stricter interpretation of the Bill of Rights as noted in Rochin, if there was no reasonable overt showing that any of the passengers had either done anything wrong or were holding any contraband, the idea of assuming a high probability seems counter to the Constitution. The original stop was made because of a faulty brake light, and had nothing to do with any of the passengers. Even though the driver had a visible needle and admitted to using, the other passengers, according to the case, were not acting as if they were under the influence and did not physically do anything to cause suspicion. Therefore, the search of the purse should have been illegal.

Case 3 -- Jacobson v U.S. (1992) Summary of the Facts -- This case was focused on both criminal procedure and entrapment and was the first time the Court considered entrapment outside of controlled substances. U.S. Postal Inspectors began a sting operation in 1985 to find people who might be obtaining illegal pornography in the mail. Keith Jacobson was a 56 bachelor and retired Army employee who received a bogus letter and materials that might gauge his interest in certain types of pornography. In 1987 more material was sent and Jacobson responded, placing an order that was never filled. In June of that year, Jacobson received a card asking him to go to the post office to pick up material and he was observed doing so, causing a judge to issue a search warrant for his home. He was then arrested and indicted on receiving sexually explicitly materials depicting minors. He denied knowing that any pornographic materials was ordered, saying that he thought it was nudist art. He was subsequently fired from his job and had to sell his assets to defend himself and, despite no evidence that he had ever approached underage children his life was ruined. His case was heard by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and in 1990 it was overturned on the grounds that the government had insufficient grounds at that Jacobson had been baited. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the cased based on Justice John Paul Steven's recommendation that this was entrapment. The High Court, in a 5-4 margin reversed his conviction, agreeing that he had been entrapped (Keith Jacobson v. United States, 1992).

Issue - Was Jacobson entrapped and did the prosecution ever prove that the agencies of the U.S. government did not in fact, cause him to violate the Child Protection Act?

Analysis and Evaluation -- Essentially, this case is about entrapment, which is the idea that law enforcement agencies act in a manner to cause people to commit crimes they might not ordinarily had done if they had not been encouraged. In the case of Jacobson, while he may have had predilections to view underage pornography, his record and his actions never showed that he was dangerous to children or the community. Since he did not seek out the materials, but was presented with opportunities for them by agents mailing materials, this was clear entrapment because it was the government that put the idea of purchasing said materials into his mind. There was no evidence that other than these bogus ads, that he had ever ordered or purchased underage pornography at all. (1) The government induced Jacobson to order child pornography by first sending mail to him based on an assumption that he had previously ordered material when it was legal. USPS investigators further sent him materials from a sham group called the American Hedonist Society and then supposedly found his name in another file. In 1986 they sent him mail from another fictitious organization and despite trying to get him to write back with a list of others in his community who might share other interests, had to send him materials in 1987 from the Far Eastern Trading Company. In all, there were at least four attempts over the years to entice Jacobson to purchase underage pornography. (2) The only evidence shown that Jacobson was predisposed was that he had been on a list that ordered materials prior to 1985 of a sexually explicit nature involving children. In addition, Jacobson responded that sexual freedom was under attack based on materials from fictitious groups eliciting his sympathy. (3) The Court reversed the jury-led conviction because it believed that while child pornography was certainly a societal evil, there was clear evidence that the government had exerted pressure for over 2.5 years to push Jacobson into committing acts and using multiple techniques to coerce him into doing so, often without the knowledge that the materials were in fact illegal. (4) Justice O'Connor, writing for the dissent, noted that in the future, everyone will claim entrapment regardless of their record of predisposition and that the redefinition of entrapment will mean that even if someone does something illegal, they will claim they were coerced into that action (Samaha, pp. 356-8).

Recommendations -- Some claim that this decision limits law enforcement's ability to stop illegal activity. In fact, Jacobson seems to have allowed Courts to agree with more and more entrapment activities. Rather than baiting consumers into purchasing pornography and/or illegal materials, why go to the time and expense to do so rather than simply prosecuting those who do illegal activities on their own. Someone may think, for instance, about robbing a bank, but unless they actually rob that bank, they are not guilty of anything more than thinking about it. Someone may, in fact, be predisposed to child pornography, but once they found it was illegal, may have not purchased it without being pushed into it by other sources. Jacobson may have been predisposed, but it was the 2.5 years of pushing and effort that actually caused the action. Finally, the overall reward to actions like this, supposedly protection of society, does not fit with the expense and time involved. This is particularly true now with the Internet, in which it is relatively easy to find images from all over the world that some would define as pornographic.

Case 4 U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte (1976) Summary of the Facts - This case was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed the Border Patrol to set up permanent structures on public highways leading from the Mexican/American border and that these checkpoints were not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The issue followed the defendant, Martinez-Fuente, who agreed to transport to illegal Mexican citizens who had entered the U.S. through San Ysidro. When stopped, they admitted their status and Martinez-Fuente was charged with illegal transporting aliens. Martinez-Fuente moved to have the evidence suppressed the grounds that the checkpoints violated the 4th Amendment. He was subsequently convicted. The High Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that internal checkpoints were, in fact, not a violation of the 4th Amendment but were consistent with that portion of the Bill of Rights. Law enforcement could simply not practically seek warrants for every vehicle that passes through the border, and to prevent illegal activity and promote the public interest, the use of these checkpoints outweighed the potential constitutional incursions placed upon any individual (United States v. Martinez-Fuente, et al., 1976).

Issue - Do stops and permanent locations to embed such stops violate the individual's rights against unreasonable search and seizure?