1. Rochin, schmerber & mapp

2. Welcome Pick up the article on your way in.
Come show me your worksheet “Allowed or Not Allowed”.
If you did not do the optional assignment, please read the three cases Rochin, Schmerber & Mapp
If you did the optional assignments, please come show me, and then read the Schmerber case.
You will need your study guide out.

3. Let’s review the answers to “Allowed or Not Allowed”

4. Rochin v. California #17 How did the Supreme Court Rule?
Rochin was suspected of dealing drugs
2 capsules. Rochin ate them (destroyed evidence.
Ordered doctors to pump his stomach
Warrant wasn’t for pumping his stomach, invasive procedure. “not reasonable”
5th- self-incrimination
14th- unfair treatment by government
Why did the deputies enter Rochin’s house?
What did the deputies notice when they entered Rochin’s room? What did he do?
What did the deputies do as a result?
What did Rochin claim was unreasonable about the search?
What rights did Rochin claim were violated?
How did the Supreme Court Rule?
The government intrusion was so invasive that it “shocked the conscience”

5. Schmerber v. California #18
Why was Schmerber arrested?
DWI. Evidence supported the arrest, crash, smell of alcohol & actions.
How did the police obtain the evidence against Schmerber?
Ordered doctor to draw blood
Why did Scmerber claim his 4th, 5th &14th Amendment rights were violated?
4th- did not have warrant to search inside his body for alcohol
5th- forced to provide evidence against himself.
14th – felt sticking his arm with a needle was unfair treatment.
Do you think they were violated?
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?
Blood test is a simple medical procedure- did not “shock the conscience”.
Schmerber v. California #18

6. Mapp v. Ohio #19 Why were the police at Mapp’s house?
To look for a suspect in a bombing whom they believed was hiding in the house.
Do you think this was an example of an unreasonable search and seizure?
Yes. They did not have a warrant and had time to get one. Lied about having the warrant. They looked in boxes- suspect couldn’t have been in a box.
What was Mapp convicted of?
Possession of obscene material
If the police had waited for a warrant, what would they have been looking for?
A person
Do you think the evidence obtained would have been allowed in court under that warrant?
No, unless in plain view. The warrant would not have been general or looking for that type of material
What’s the Exclusionary Rule?
Evidence not legally obtained may not be used in a court of law. Can’t use illegally seized evidence.

7. Homework: On my website find Tinker v. Des Moines
Read the article & answer #21 on your study guide