(855) 4-ESSAYS

Type a new keyword(s) and press Enter to search

Rochin v California

             Parties: Rochin: defendant/ appellant/ petitioner.
             California: plaintiff/ appellee/ respondent.
             Three Los Angeles deputy sheriffs went to Rochin's home because they had some information that Rochin was selling narcotics. The officers found the outside door to the house open so they entered and forced open the door to Rochin's room. Inside the officers found rochin sitting on his bed next to his wife. The officers saw two capsules of possible narcotics on the nightstand. When questioned about the capsules, Rochin put them in his mouth. The three officers struggled with Rochin in attempt to extract the capsules from his mouth by sticking fingers in his mouth. Because the officers were unable to retrieve the capsules, Rochin was taken to the hospital. Rochin had his stomach pumped against his will. The stomach pumping induced vomiting and the capsules containing morphine were retrieved. Rochin was convicted without a jury in a California Superior court on the charge of possessing " a preparation of morphine" in violation of the California Health and Safety Code. .
             Procedural History:.
             The California Superior Court convicted Rochin for possession of "a preparation of morphine" in violation of the California Health and Safety Code. The District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the California Superior Court. Rochin petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. A writ of certiorari was granted. .
             Plaintiff's Legal Argument:.
             The state of California had the authority to control and determine lawful and unlawful conduct in its jurisdiction. It was the responsibility of the state to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. California had a legitimate interest in controlling drug violations and drug use. Rochin violated those laws and posed a threat to California citizens. When Rochin chose to violate the laws, his rights were diluted and restricted. Rochin's Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure was not violated because he possessed illegal narcotics, which posed a threat to the community.

Essays Related to Rochin v California

Got a writing question? Ask our professional writer!
Submit My Question