NCJ Number
32718
Journal
University of San Francisco Law Review Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (SUMMER 1975) Pages: 93-114
Date Published
1975
Length
22 pages
Annotation
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF 'FORCED REGURGITATION' TYPE POLICE SEARCHES IS DISCUSSED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF BOTH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE CLAIM AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIM.
Abstract
ANALYZED IS WHETHER THESE AMENDMENTS FORBID STOMACH SEARCHES PER SE; AND IF NOT, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS STOMACH SEARCHES ARE PERMISSBILE. THE 1975 CALFIRONIA SUPREME COURT CASE OF PEOPLE V. BRACAMONTE AND THE PROBLEMS INHERENT THEREIN ARE ALSO EXAMINED. IN THIS STOMACH SEARCH CASE, THE COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER OR DISCUSS THE 'UNREASONABLE SEARCH' AND DUE PROCESS CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT, AND INSTEAD RULED EVIDENCE IN ADMISSIBLE BASED ON THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE WARRANT AND THE LACK OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE AUTHOR PROPOSES GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO STOMACH SEARCHES. SHE SUGGESTS THAT THE SEARCH SHOULD FIRST BE EXAMINED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO DETERMINE IF THE PROCEDURE 'PER SE' IS INVALID. ASSUMING ITS VALIDITY, ANALYSIS WOULD THEN PROCEED UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DETERMINE IF THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN A REASONABLE MANNER. ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF FORCE USED TO CONDUCT THE SEARCH WOULD ALSO BE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE FOURTH AMENDEMNT.