Court Opinion

ID: 9703469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:57:52.037019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:49.267090
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Prentice, J.
The proposed majority opinion treats only one issue presented by this appeal. I dissent from the view expressed in such opinion upon that issue, i.e. “the reasonableness of a court-ordered surgical operation on the body of a suspect in order to secure evidence to establish his guilt or innocence.”
I do not see in Rochin v. California (1952), 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183, relied upon by the majority, a proscription of minor surgical procedures under the circumstances of the case at bar. For comparison, the facts stated in the Rochin decision are set out as follows:
“Having ‘some information that [the petitioner here] was selling narcotics,’ three deputy sheriffs of the County of Los Angeles, on the morning of July 1, 1949, made for the two-story dwelling house in which Rochin lived with his mother, common-law wife, brothers and sisters. Finding the outside door open, the entered and then forced open the door to Rochin’s room on the second floor. Inside they found petitioner sitting partly dressed on the side of the bed, upon which his wife was lying. On a ‘night stand’ beside the bed the deputies spied two capsules. When asked ‘Whose stuff is this?’ Rochin seized the capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued in the course of which the three officers ‘jumped upon him’ and attempted to extract the capsules. The force they applied proved unavailing against Rochin’s resistance. He was handcuffed and taken to a hospital. At the direction of one of the officers a doctor forced an emetic solution through a tube into *679Rochin’s stomach against his will. This ‘stomach pumping’ produced vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to contain morphine.” 342 U.S. at 166.
In Rochin, the police had no authority to take such action. They entered Rochin’s dwelling by force and interrogated him. Such conduct was itself improper. Here, the questioned conduct was done under the authority of a search warrant. The events in this case do not involve the elements of force and violence. The case is better compared with Schmerber v. California (1966), 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908, where the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the trial court in admitting the results of tests of blood extracted from the body of the defendant over his protest. The reasonableness of such intrusions, it appears to me, must depend upon the circumstances of each case. Here, there was a judicial determination of probable cause to believe, not only that the critical evidence was embedded in the fatty tissue of the defendant’s posterior, but also that he had been involved in the perpetration of the crime. The surgical procedure required to remove the evidence posed no threat of serious bodily injury, mental anguish or even physical discomfort to the defendant. Obviously, we would not sanction open heart surgery or brain surgery upon suspicion that evidence of questionable value relative to a charged misdemeanor might be thereby obtained. I do not agree, however, that the simple surgical procedure performed upon the defendant under local anaesthetic was an “intrusion of the most serious magnitude.” Under the circumstances in this case, I think such removal was warranted and did not offend against the state or federal constitutional proscriptions.
I do question the propriety of the surgical activity involved in this case without a prior hearing affording the defendant an opportunity to protest and bringing forth medical testimony. Such question, however, has not been presented here.
I would affirm.
*680Givan, J. concurs.
Note.—Reported in 299 N. E. 2d 834.