U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

United States v. Alonzo Pena Caldera, United States of America v. Lois Virginia Caldera

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided January 19, 1970 · Merrill, Koelsch, Hufstedler

421 F.2d 152; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11171 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Joseph H. Soble (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for Alonzo Pena Caldera, Paul E. Wolf (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for Lois Virginia Caldera, William C. Scott, Tucson, Ariz., for appellants., William C. Smitherman (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., John L. Augustine, Asst. U. S. Atty., Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.

People v. Cappellia (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)
State v. Thompson (Neb. 1993)
Daniel William Alesi v. Walter E. Craven (9th Cir. 1971)
Webb v. City of Vancouver (District Court, W.D. Washington 2020)
United States v. Holloway (District Court, D. Kansas 1995)
Jones v. United States (D.C. 1993)
People v. Johnson (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)
People v. Fulkman (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)
State v. Victor (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
United States v. Juan F. Torres (8th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Douglas Paul Aman (9th Cir. 1980)
State v. Jacques (Kan. 1978)
State v. Jacques (Kan. Ct. App. 1978)
United States v. Peterson (9th Cir. 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.