Schmerber v. California, 784 US 757 (1966)
Facts:
Schmerber was involved in a traffic accident. When officers arrived on the scene of the accident they observed that Schmerber looked and acted drunk and smelled alcohol on him. They took Schmerber to the hospital and, against his objections (upon the advice of his attorney) they withdrew blood from him and checked it for alcohol.
History:
Schmerber was convicted of driving while under the influence by the municipal court and the California appeals court affirmed. The case was then granted certiorari by the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Is it an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment or a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination for a police officer to compel the withdrawal of blood from a person over the objections of the person, and their attorney, and without a warrant?
Rule of Law:
The court repeated the conclusions of the Supreme court in Court is Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245: “[T]he prohibition of compellinga man in a criminal court to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extortcommunications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material. The objection in principle wouldforbid a jury to look at a prisoner and compare his features with a photograph in proof.” This indicates that the Fifth Amendment applies only to protect an accused from speaking or uttering words against his or her own interest, not to the withdrawal of blood or other bodily fluids from the accused. Moreover, the court stated, the distinction between what is protected or what is not is “that the privilege is a bar against compelling "communications" or "testimony,"but that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of "real or physical evidence" does not violate it.” Therefore, to use the body of an accused, and its fluids, as evidence, is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The accused here provided no statement against himself.
It is a fact that the administration of a blood test is a seizure or search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects the “person.” As such, the question becomes whether the search or seizure was justified under the circumstances. In this case the evidence indicates the officer had probable cause to suspect drunkenness and that due to the ability of alcohol to be removed from the body as time passes, there was no time to obtain a warrant. The search/seizure complied with the Fourth Amendment.
Holding:
Affirmed conviction.
Rochin v. California 342 US165 (1952)
Facts:
Police were given information that Rochin was selling narcotics. The police entered Rochin’s home and bedroom, where he and his wife were sleeping. Upon entry police observed two capsules on the night stand next to the bed and asked what they were. Rochin put the pills in his mouth and swallowed. The officers unsuccessfully tried to extract the pills by force and then took Rochin to a hospital where, against his will, he was given medicine and forced to throw up.
History:
The state trial court convicted Rochin of violating state laws against possessing morphine and the state appeals court affirmed and the state supreme court refused to hear the case. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause allow evidence to be forcibly removed from a person?
Rule of Law:
The Court stated that the behavior Rochin was subjected to was such that it “shocks the conscience. ... the struggle to open his mouth and remove what was there, the forcible extraction of his stomach's contents ... are methods too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation.” The actions taken here were such that they “offend ‘a sense of justice,’” and convictions obtained on evidence obtained in such manner cannot be allowed to stand.
Holding:
Conviction overturned.
Comparison and Contrast:
The differences between Schmerber and Rochin are subtle, but they are present. While the main decision under Schmerber was made under the Fourth Amendment and Rochin’s case involved a discussion of the Due Process rights of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, that is not a material difference, as both accused brought up the Due Process Clause. The key distinctions here appears to be that officers in Schmerber had evidence, in addition to the blood, which could substantiate their probable cause that Schmerber was acting illegally and which gave them a right to obtain the evidence and normal means of extraction, by a non-violent method were used wheras in Rochin the officers had nothing other than the evidence they forcibly removed from Rochin to prove their case and they used “violent” means of obtaining it.
While the “evidence” in Schmerber was only available through his own bodily fluids and could not be separated out from it, in Rochin’s case the evidence itself was in his body and separate from fluids and other matter at the time it was obtained. In theory, the evidence in Schmerber was a part of his body but in Rochin it was still separate. And, while violence was not part of Schmerber’s extraction, it was used on Rochin, meaning that the officers tried to obtain rights to property through abusive means that violate the Due Process Clause.