Rochin v. California
E415505
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Rochin v. California canonical | 1 |
| Rochin v. People of the State of California | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4119475 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Rochin v. California Context triple: [Wolf v. Colorado, relatedCase, Rochin v. California]
-
A.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
B.
Strickland v. Washington
Strickland v. Washington is a landmark 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the two-pronged test for determining when a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated.
-
C.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
D.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
-
E.
Nixon v. Condon
Nixon v. Condon is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’s delegation of authority to the Democratic Party to exclude Black voters from primary elections as unconstitutional state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Rochin v. California Target entity description: Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
A.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
B.
Strickland v. Washington
Strickland v. Washington is a landmark 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the two-pronged test for determining when a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated.
-
C.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
D.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
-
E.
Nixon v. Condon
Nixon v. Condon is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’s delegation of authority to the Democratic Party to exclude Black voters from primary elections as unconstitutional state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ due process case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ |
| arguedDate |
1951-10-16
ⓘ
1951-10-17 ⓘ |
| citation |
342 U.S. 165
ⓘ
72 S. Ct. 205 ⓘ 96 L. Ed. 183 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson
ⓘ
surface form:
Fred M. Vinson
Harold H. Burton ⓘ Hugo L. Black ⓘ Robert H. Jackson ⓘ Sherman Minton ⓘ Tom C. Clark ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1952-01-02 ⓘ |
| factSummary |
Deputies entered Rochin’s home without a warrant and saw him swallow capsules suspected to contain narcotics
ⓘ
Officers took Rochin to a hospital where his stomach was forcibly pumped to recover the capsules ⓘ The recovered capsules contained morphine and were used to convict Rochin of illegal possession ⓘ |
| fullName |
Rochin v. California
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Rochin v. People of the State of California
|
| holding |
Evidence obtained by methods that shock the conscience violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
Forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach to obtain evidence violates due process ⓘ |
| impact |
Contributed to development of standards governing police brutality and coercive evidence-gathering
ⓘ
Influenced later substantive due process jurisprudence ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
admissibility of evidence obtained by coercive methods ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
Due process prohibits methods of obtaining evidence that offend a sense of justice
ⓘ
The government may not obtain convictions by conduct that shocks the conscience ⓘ |
| lowerCourt |
California Courts of Appeal
ⓘ
surface form:
California District Court of Appeal
|
| lowerCourtDisposition | judgment affirmed ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Felix Frankfurter ⓘ |
| petitioner | Antonio Rochin NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Brown v. Mississippi
ⓘ
Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ Wolf v. Colorado ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
exclusionary rule
ⓘ
police misconduct ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ |
| respondent |
California, United States
ⓘ
surface form:
State of California
|
| standardAnnounced | shocks the conscience ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
exclusion of coerced physical evidence
ⓘ
police conduct in obtaining evidence ⓘ |
| supremeCourtDisposition | judgment reversed ⓘ |
| vote | 8-0 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1952 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Rochin v. California Description of subject: Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Rochin v. People of the State of California