People v. Dawson

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of violating sec tion 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (unlawful possession of a narcotic) after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals.

Facts;

1

Police Officer Northrup on February 17, 1954, at approximately 11 p. m., together with his partner, Officer Conrad, observed defendant accompanied by a woman on the west side of Gladys Street near its intersection with Fourth street. As the officers approached defendant and his companion in their police car and stopped near them, they saw defendant place his right hand to his mouth and put some

[376]

thing in it. Officer Northrup put his arm around defendant’s neck and told him to spit it out, at which time Officer Conrad came over and handcuffed defendant.

. There was a slight struggle and defendant spat the object from his mouth, which, upon examination by the police chemist, was found to be three bindles containing heroin.

Question; Was defendant denied due process of law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States f

2

No.

Defendant argues that he was deprived of due process of law in his trial for the reason that “brutal or shocking force” was exerted against his person in order to acquire evidence later used to convict him. In support of this contention he relies on

Rochin

v.

California,

342 U.S. 165 [72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183, 25 A.L.R.2d 1396],

This contention is devoid of merit. The facts as set forth above were clearly supported by the evidence and there is a total absence of any showing of brutal or shocking force used against defendant to obtain the bindles of heroin which he had placed in his mouth, the officer having testified that he merely put his arm around defendant’s neck to hold him and told him to spit out what he had placed in his mouth. Clearly there is no brutality or shocking force demonstrated by such evidence.