skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 32718 Find in a Library
Title: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STOMACH SEARCHES
Journal: UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO LAW REVIEW  Volume:10  Issue:1  Dated:(SUMMER 1975)  Pages:93-114
Author(s): S I BARBOUR
Date Published: 1975
Page Count: 22
Sponsoring Agency: University of San Francisco Law Review
San Francisco, CA 94117
Sale Source: University of San Francisco Law Review
School of Law
Hendrick Hall
2130 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
United States of America
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
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.
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Judicial decisions; Right to Due Process; Search and seizure; Search and seizure laws
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=32718

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.