In an abomination of due process rights, police barged their way into the home of Antonio Richard Rochin, where they found discovered drugs as the accused swallowed the morphine pills, and the officers choked Rochin and shoved fingers down his throat. Among other injustices that fateful day, the actions testified in Rochin v. California were violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. During the Supreme Court Trial, new terms and legal phrases were coined: “conduct that shocks the conscience,” the balancing test, and “decencies of civilized conduct.” Obtaining illegal evidence through physically intrusive measures and coercive tactics violates several portions of the United States Constitution. The Rochin v. California decision would affect situations in the future; everything from red light cameras to Irvine v. California just a year later. Rochin v. California was significant because it allowed the Supreme Court to take societal standards of unlawful conduct into consideration, in contrast with focusing on strict interpretation of the Constitution and precedent.
The 1952 case of Rochin v. California involved the following facts. Rochin had swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence, and then police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in vain to make Rochin vomit. He was taken to a hospital where police officers instructed a doctor to administer an emetic by forcing a tube into Rochin’s stomach. Subsequently, he vomited the capsules and was convicted on the presentation of his vomit as evidence. (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1953), Kreimer)
The first issue was if the police procedure violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The second issue at hand and more flagrant constitutional violation was if forcing Antonio Rochin to vomit breached the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In a 6 to 3 powerful decision, the Court reversed the conviction, as police did indeed breach Rochin’s right to due process of the law. Even though due process was a seemingly vague concept here, Justices claimed it prohibited conduct that shocks the conscious. Inconsequently, Justice Black mocked this approach in his concurring opinion because he disagreed with using societal notions in ruling. (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1953))
Looking at how the Justices determine society’s standards of civilized conduct, this case is significant because it slightly deteriorated the impartiality of the judiciary. On the other hand, the Court gained some power from the ability to create new terminology and a more activist approach towards law. It is a matter of debating Constitutional protections and infringement of basic rights versus protecting public welfare. The removal of drugs from society could be an issue in this case in hindsight; however, the shocking conduct turns the Antonio Rochin case to due process protections.
Importantly, the Supreme Court Justices took a more activist approach by coining new terms surrounding this case. The well known phrase “behavior that shocks the conscience” is the Court’s way of defining morals vaguely set in the Constitution. Laws that are “facially unjust” or “offend one’s sense of justice” must be inherently wrong. Going further than judicial review, provided by Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Court is left to sometimes loosely interpret the Constitution. However, in the case of Rochin, the result was largely positive and beneficial.
There is debate among judges between strict constructionists and more activist individuals; and which is more advantageous for “justice.” Before Rochin v. CA came up to the Supreme Court, in the California Supreme Court, two justices dissented from the lower court ruling. Although self-incrimination is explicit in the Constitution, the difference between verbal and physical coercion is not. The following quote explains their thoughts about self-incrimination:
“…a conviction which rests upon evidence of incriminating objects obtained from the body of the accused by physical abuse is as invalid as a conviction which rests upon a verbal confession extracted from him by such abuse. . . . Had the evidence forced from defendant's lips consisted of an oral confession that he illegally possessed a drug . . . , he would have the protection of the rule of law which excludes coerced confessions from evidence. But because the evidence forced from his lips consisted of real objects, the People of this state are permitted to base a conviction upon it. [We] find no valid ground of distinction between a verbal confession extracted by physical abuse and a confession wrested from defendant's body by physical abuse.”
The justices exclaim that there is no real, substantive differentiation in Court between verbal coercion and physical coercion by abuse. Either manner is self-incriminating and a violation of the American Constitution. The Supreme Court took an activist approach to interpret the Fifth Amendment, used personal notions of decency, and society’s standards to determine the ruling. (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1953))
In contrast, it can be negative for the judiciary to use outside influences in their decision-making process. Although the lower court’s decision was overturned unanimously, Justice Douglas offered the following criticism about the majority opinion. He said the decision insults the impartiality of judges and focuses on society’s standards; which goes against the Court’s responsibilities. Douglas thought it was quite “sudden” that illegally acquired evidence violated the “decencies of civilized conduct” and that it had not been an issue prior. Though Justice Douglas agreed with the decision, he felt the Court should have emphasized the criminal action of Rochin, rather than the application or procedure of law. Even though these might be arguably minor contradictions, Justice Frankfurter, who wrote the majority opinion, thought it wise to take into account both precedence and societal context. Perhaps, later Supreme Court Justices felt more comfortable to take societal context into consideration because of the Antonio Rochin v. CA decision. (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1953))
Many other arenas of law, politics, and society were affected by the decision. This case was noteworthy because it regarded police brutality unacceptable by society’s standards and emphasized the concept of illegal search and seizure in the Fifth Amendment. Futhermore, even if amendments were not applicable to the states through incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment, they are still at least available. These are considerable concepts in future cases involving police beatings, racial profiling, and narcotics. (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1953))
The Rochin v. CA decision affected many other states for decades to come. Before, only four states (Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, and Missouri) excluded evidence that came from physical coercion. It is certain many accused criminals after that benefited from the exclusion of their evidence. Police brutality was no longer acceptable from the Court’s perspective, even if the crime was clear. This is largely because of the public influence on the Supreme Court Justices. Throughout history, the Justices have struggled between strict constructionism and activism.
Related central cases include Boyd v. U.S. (1886), Malinski v. New York (1945), Adamson v. California (1947), and Irvine v. California (1954). From Rochin v. CA, tests were developed regarding behavior that shocks the conscious. These balancing tests have been criticized as being subjective in following cases. The balancing test in this case, which created precedent, has since brought much criticism and replaced by “bright-line tests.” Playing devil’s advocate, the balancing test can be seen as arbitrary and entirely subjective because it is a mere explanation to justify multiple factors and the importance of each. The balancing test essentially weighed the value of the evidence versus the injustice of the issues.
The Supreme Court uses several tests to aid in their decision-making. The shocks-the-conscience test, developed by the Rochin decision, attempts to control and limit arbitrary government action. Anything that cannot be justified and violates general notions of serious moral codes is deemed by the Court illegal. The Justices used Rochin as precedent in Washington v. Glucksburg to define bodily integrity. Fundamental rights and liberty interests must protect government interference of due process. (Rubin, Farrell)
Dedicated to upholding due process of the law, the American Civil Liberties Union is an organization with the objectives of protecting constitutional tights. The ACLU filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in favor of Rochin, quoting text from Haley v. Ohio. Due process requires that prosecutorial means “cannot include methods that may be fairly deemed to be in conflict with deeply rooted feelings of the community.” For all intents and purposes, the ACLU is encouraging the Justices to not just use private, personal notions but to look at morals of the general population. The Justices should not be influenced by the public. However, the Supreme Court should use rational ideology to analyze the morals of society. (www.jenner.com)
The Supreme Court Justices using society’s standards does not originate in Rochin v. California. Before Rochin ever made it to the Supreme Court, constitutional conscience was brought up in a federal court. In 1944, twenty-six Japanese-Americans (Nisei) who were held in internment camps – were drafted and refused to serve in the military. The presiding federal district judge, Louis Goodman of San Francisco, dismissed the men’s indictment because the young men were prosecuted for refusing to sacrifice their lives to defend rights they didn’t have in internment camps. Eric Muller, a Professor, wrote about the broader doctrinal significance and the judicial progression to “branding” conduct that shocks the conscience. (Muller)
Part of society’s moral conscience is a right to personal space, developed from the constitutional right to property. There is also a notion of privacy, not explicit in the Constitution, but implied, that applies to American citizens. Broadened from the right to own property, an individual has the right to privacy of their body and immediate surroundings. Antonio Rochin’s body was violated in a way and intruded by the state. Beyond the right not to self-incriminate, people have the informal right to their own bodies. This debate can follow into controversies over computer privacy and reproductive rights. Rochin v. California was significant in other contexts, as well. (Iannaccone)
According to Kenneth W. Gemmill, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Rochin is a keystone case in the constitutional protection of bodily integrity against arbitrary invasion. Basically, the Due Process Clause prohibits government officials from abusing their power in a way that shocks the conscience of the Court. In relation to recent allegations that U.S. officials use torture, the Court has looked at the case of Rochin v. California. There are general protections against government cruelty. Due process protects physical abuse, even if they are not specified in the Constitution, because it shocks the conscience of the Court. (Kreimer)
Controversy surrounds constitutional rights and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the War on Terror, Rochin’s standard of conduct that shocks the conscience applies to interrogatories, expanding to also mean degrading and inhumane treatment. Torture is defined as “the infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession…or to obtain sadistic pleasure.” Public officials use “torture lite” to interrogate detainees with sleep deprivation, extreme temperature exposure, forcing the individual into stress positions, using paranoia, threatening family members, and numerous other legal techniques.
For example, during Ramadan, a female interrogator flirted and touched a prisoner with lotion to get information from him, because physical contact between Muslim men and women during holy times is highly offensive. This conduct does shock the conscience, even though it is mostly a mentally abusive technique used on the human psyche. Although more aggressive forms of torture have been outlawed from Rochin’s standards, mental torture is common in Guatanamo Bay and other holding areas of prisoners. (Kreimer) In cases brought up about torture, the original language is used from Rochin. The Supreme Court said that obtaining evidence by methods “so brutal and so offensive to human dignity” violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Addicott) In court cases related to torture, Supreme Court Justices must look to 1) the U.S. Constitution; 2) customary international law; 3) private notions of liberty; and as precedented by Rochin v. CA, 4) society’s standards of civilized conduct.
A milder form of torture and violation of due process rights is use of truth serum in interrogations. When the constitutionality of the truth serum was questioned, Rochin was brought up because of the issue of self-incrimination. In the case of Antonio Rochin, the evidence should have been inadmissible in Court because it violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the larger issue should be the violation of bodily integrity. Likewise, using truth serum violates mental integrity. Even though the use of truth serum is effectively self-incrimination, it is still allowed by the U.S. federal government. (Odeshoo)
Although the United States allows the military to use truth serum, it is both self-incriminating and misleading. Richard Leo discusses in a thought-provoking piece, the disadvantages of coercive interrogative techniques. New, sophisticated ways of persuasion use tools of deception, manipulation, and betrayal. Individuals being interrogated do not always understand their rights and even with advanced interrogation techniques, the rate of accurate confessions has not wavered. Antonio Rochin had similar constitutional rights violations. In aggressive interrogations, individuals are “mentally” being self-incriminated. The evidence violently removed from Rochin was “physically” self-incriminating. (Leo, Levinson)
The significance of Rochin v. California can be found in everything from torture cases to police abuse accusations to human rights standards. Antonio Rochin’s due process rights were violated and the Supreme Court used society’s standards to protect the U.S. Constitution. In this landmark case, the Justices’ impartiality was questioned because they decided to overturn Rochin’s conviction based on principles outside the Constitution and their private notions of justice. The wrongdoings of police officers and judges could then be remedied and left to American history.
No comments:
Post a Comment