The perversion of science in criminal personnel investigations.

• Author: Inbau, Fred E.
• Position: Originally published in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 42, p. 128, 1952 - Reprint

A suspected dope peddler by the name of Rochin was about to be arrested by California law enforcement officers. He threw two capsules into his mouth and swallowed them. Believing that the capsules contained narcotics, the officers took him to a hospital where they enlisted the aid of a physician in the use of a "stomach pump" for the purpose of obtaining the capsules. Up they came, and a subsequent laboratory test revealed their contents to be morphine.

Another triumph for science? Or was this a perversion of science?

The physician in this case might attempt to justify his participation by saying that no real physical harm, but only temporary discomfort, could have resulted from the "stomach pumping" operation; and that he assumed his actions to be legally proper since the request for his assistance came from responsible law enforcement officers. On their own behalf the deputy sheriffs could say that the arrestee in this case was not just an ordinary citizen, suspected of an ordinary type of criminal offense, but rather a criminal guilty of one of the most despicable of all crimes--dope peddling. They might also say that they were not on an indiscriminate search for incriminating evidence, since they had good reason to suspect Rochin of possessing dope and even saw him swallow the receptacles customarily used for concealing such contraband. The officers could also add that they knew at the time of the stomach pumping operation that the California courts had gone on record as approving the use of incriminating evidence regardless of the manner in which it had been obtained. But these various considerations, however valid they may be, do not necessarily furnish a negative answer to the question of whether the Rochin case stomach pumping episode represents a perversion of science. Back of all of this there is a rather abstract factor to consider--the instinctive public disapproval of overzealous investigative procedures of this sort, even when used against our most undesirable element. That feeling is reflected, as well as perpetuated, in court decisions from time to time. Let us take a look, therefore, at the outcome of the Rochin case, first in the California courts and then in the United States Supreme Court.

In California, as in about half of the states, evidence can be used in court even though it was obtained by illegal means. Adhering to its precedents to this effect, the California trial court in the Rochin case admitted the scientific evidence against the accused, and he was convicted. The California appellate courts sustained the trial court's decision, although not without dissents from some of the judges.(1) When the case reached the United States Supreme Court, however, the conviction was set aside. The decision of the Court was unanimous.(2)

Despite the California appellate court's affirmance of Rochin's conviction, the appellate judges were very critical of the investigative procedures employed. They accused the deputy sheriffs and the doctor of being guilty of "unlawfully assaulting...