Opinion ID: 604362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Judicial Conscience

Text: 28 Finally, Davis contends that the conduct of appellees was so offensive that it shocks the judicial conscience, and thus he argues that he is entitled to maintain this action. This argument lacks merit. 29 Davis cites Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), in support of his proposition. In Rochin, the Court reversed the defendant's conviction because it held that the police officers had violated his due process rights when they illegally broke into his home and had the contents of his stomach forcibly extracted in order to obtain evidence. Id. at 172. The Court stated that convictions cannot be brought about by methods that offend a sense of justice. Id. at 173 (quotations omitted). 30 Davis's reliance upon Rochin is misplaced. First, Rochin 's shock-the-conscience test has been subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 666 (1961). Second, Rochin is factually distinguishable. Rochin arose within the context of an appeal from a criminal conviction and did not involve civil liability or the immunity doctrine. Therefore, Rochin does not permit Davis's suit.