NCJ Number
30396
Date Published
1974
Length
0 pages
Annotation
POLICE LEGAL TRAINING FILM WHICH PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR USE OF FORCE IN PHYSICALLY SEIZING EVIDENCE FROM THE MOUTH, STOMACH, OR OTHER PARTS OF A SUSPECTS BODY TO PREVENT ITS DESTRUCTION OR DISPOSAL.
Abstract
JUDICIAL DECISIONS PROHIBITING THE USE OF UNREASONABLE FORCE (EXPECIALLY CHOKING IN THE CASE OF THE SUSPECT'S TRYING TO SWALLOW CONTRABAND) ARE CITED AND DISCUSSED. THE TYPES OF PERMISSIBLE FORCE IDENTIFIED INCLUDE VERBAL COMMANDS, RESTRAINT, FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF EVIDENCE FROM A HAND OR CLENCHED FIST, AND NECK HOLDS WHICH PREVENT SWALLOWING BUT ALLOW BREATHING. IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT THE POLICE OFFICER SHOULD, IN PREPARING ARREST REPORTS AND GIVING COURTROOM TESTIMONY, BE CAREFUL TO DESCRIBE HIS CONDUCT ACCURATELY, TAKE NOTE OF FACTS WHICH WILL SUBSTANTIATE THE ABSENCE OF CHOKING, AND DESCRIBE FACTS RELATING TO THE DEGREE AND NATURE OF FORCE OR RESISTANCE OFFERED BY THE DEFENDANT. A DISCUSSION OF BODY SEARCHES POINTS OUT THAT STOMACH PUMPING AND THE USE OF EMETICS ARE PERMISSIBLE IF THERE IS A GENUINE DANGER TO LIFE, THE PROCEDURE IS ADMINISTERED BY A MEDICAL DOCTOR, THERE IS MINIMUM DISCOMFORT, AND/OR THE SUBJECT GIVEN HIS CONSENT. ALSO CONSIDERED IS THE DEGREE OF FORCE PERMITTED TO ADMINISTER SCIENTIFIC TEST, SUCH AS FINGERPRINTING AND HANDWRITING EXEMPLARS. PERTINENT CASE LAW IS CITED TO SHOW THAT COURTS HAVE ALLOWED A REASONABLE DEGREE OF FORCE TO OVERCOME THE RESISTANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO REFUSES TO SUBMIT TO SUCH TESTS. IT IS ALSO INDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT'S REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC TEST IS USUALLY ADMISSIBLE IN COURT AS EVIDENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. (SNI ABSTRACT)