1. In the case of Rochin v. California, the appellants Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment`s were violated because the Due Process Clause prohibits the use of coerced confessions. He was convicted in a state court for violating a state law forbidding possession of narcotics, but eventually the conviction was reversed. Due process prohibits "conduct that shocks the conscience." Police cannot use excessive force against a person to obtain evidence contained in their body, even if the value of the confession was its evidentiary value.

In this example of Lousy Larry, this evidence would not be able to be offered against him at trial because it would also violate his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Taking Lousy Larry to Clovis Community Hospital would be a coerced confession in which the police forced a body cavity search by a staff doctor, despite his strong objections. Due process prevents any procedure that forces anyone to do anything that object to and the Fifth Amendment protects himself from self incrimination.

Give a reply to the comment above.

2. In the case of Rochin v. California, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence that was obtained from Rochin`s stomach could not be used as evidence after the way it was retrieved. Police suspected Rochin of illegal activity. They entered his home and found pills which Rochin proceeded to swallow. Police took him to the hospital where a doctor induced vomiting to get the pills out. The police retrieved the pills and found they had morphine.

In the scenario with Lousy Larry, the situation is similar where police found nothing that tied Lousy Larry to the crime however they then took him to the hospital where they continued to further search him without his consent. In my opinion, I believe that the evidence found on Lousy Larry should not be able to be used because of the way it was obtained. Based also on the fact that the situation is similar in Rochin v. California. The Supreme Court ruled that in Rochin v. California, the pills found were not to be used as evidenced by the fact that the police violated the defendant`s right. The Supreme Court in Rochin v. California ruled that the evidence could not be used because of the means that the police had to go through in order to obtain the evidence. It would be the same situation with Lousy Larry based on the fact that he was strongly against them searching his persona however they did it anyway. In my opinion, I don`t think that the jewel should be used as evidence.