UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ALONZO PENA CALDERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. LOIS VIRGINIA CALDERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Customs agents had sufficient indication of heroin to warrant an X-ray examination and subsequent search of the appellant's mouth, and the force used was not unreasonable.
Customs agents suspected the appellant of carrying heroin and subjected her to an X-ray examination. She refused the X-ray and was observed placing so…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rochin V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Under the standards articulated in a series of cases from this court dealing with border searches of body cavities,1 the Customs agents had sufficient indication of the presence of heroin to warrant subjecting Lois Virginia Caldera to an X-ray examination. Her refusal to submit to the X-ray and the fact that she was seen placing something in her mouth were sufficient to warrant a subsequent search of her mouth. No Fourth Amendment problem is presented.
Nor do we find a Fifth Amendment problem akin to that in Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952). The conduct of Mrs. Caldera required reasonable force to subdue her and to prevent her apparent attempt to swallow the evidence. See Blackford v. United States, 247 F. 2d 745, 752 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 914, 78 S.Ct. 672, 2 L.Ed.2d 586 (1958). We cannot say as matter of law that the force exerted was shocking or unreasonable under the circumstances.
The totality of the evidence was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether appellants were engaged in a joint enterprise.
As to both appellants judgment is affirmed.
. See, e. g., Huguez v. United States, 406 F. 2d 366 (9th Cir. 1968) ; Henderson v. United States, 390 F. 2d 805 (9th Cir. 1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Aman, 624 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1980)
-
United States v. Torres, 921 F.2d 196 (8th Cir. 1990)
-
Alesi v. Craven, 446 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1952)
- Henderson v. United States, 390 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1967)
- Blackford v. United States, 247 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1957)
- Huguez v. United States, 406 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Sykes v. Chairman & Members of the Dist. of Columbia Parole Bd., 356 U.S. 914 (U.S. 1958)
- Galloway v. Illinois, 356 U.S. 914 (U.S. 1958)