The Constitution has been said to be color-blind. Those people who were regarded as 3/5 of a person for extended periods of time under it might suggest otherwise, but as a general rule, the Constitution is a general framework around which we construct our basis of constitutional law.

That framework aspect has many times been problematic, since there are numerous instances of different branches of government overstepping their bounds, whether they be in deploying troops without Congressional authorization, passing Gun Free School Zone laws under the auspices of “interstate commerce,” and simply crafting rules of police procedure where there were none before.

But even with all this, we still haven’t even touched on the cornerstone of most civil society — determining what the legal status of someone’s vomit is prior to being Mirandized.

You’d think such concerns would have been covered by now. After all, there’s already been at least one case involving stomachs and regurgitation in the U.S. Supreme Court, just slightly more than 50 years ago, in the wonderfully graphic case of Rochin v. California.

But, alas, the Supreme Court of Connecticut learned that there is no such thing as sufficiently clear rules of police procedure when it comes to vomit, thanks to the case of Vincent Betances.

Betances was arrested for drug-dealing in Connecticut, but before being taken into custody, apparently managed to swallow eight bags of heroin. The police also found 30 other bags on his person. After being arrested, but before being read his Miranda rights, Betances was asked if he had swallowed drugs, and he informed the police that he had swallowed four bags of heroin, which the police suspected since he was having difficulty breathing.

After he vomited them up in the ambulance, those bags of heroin were used in trial, bringing up two questions. First, should they be admissible as evidence, since it is likely that they would not have been discovered if it were not for the defendant’s admission before being informed of his rights. Secondly, wouldn’t that be the worst job in the entire world to pick up people’s vomited up bags of drugs?

The second question will last for ages. The first is also difficult to answer. As a general rule, evidence that came about as “fruit of the poisonous tree” — came about because of illegal behavior on the part of police — is excluded.

So if they happen to break down your door, before John Ashcroft eliminated the Fourth Amendment in a cost-cutting measure, it was necessary that evidence they found while conducting their illegal search would be excluded, thanks to cases like Mapp v. Ohio.

However, in this case, the illegal action consisted of a question which probably saved Betances’ life. So the police are being handicapped by taking actions to protect a defendant. Rather than thank them, Betances has done the American thing and sued them for violating his rights in the process.

The presence of emergency circumstances is enough to sometimes invalidate standard rules of evidence, but that is in instances where the police happen to acquire or notice evidence, rather than collect it after it’s been regurgitated.

One can also question the urgency of the situation. It is quite possible that Betances would have survived the heroin in his system, and the urgency is also undermined by his genuine idiocy, which suggests even if his death were imminent, it might not have been vital to even his closest friends and family to save him.

For now, we can only sit and wait and wonder what we throw up in the coming years will soon be used against us in a court of law, or just in apartment deposits.

It seems silly that the police even resorted to using the eight vomited bags as evidence for his drug dealing when they already had 30 perfectly good undigested bags as evidence, but apparently they like living dangerously, and it may lead to Betances’ conviction being overturned.

As ridiculous as it may seem, it may be best for the country as a whole if Vincent Betances walks free, so that way, he can stand as a living example of just how stupid drug dealers are. With him in prison, our children may only have the influence of dealers who are successful, less cartoon-like, and filled to the brim with business savvy. Frankly, if we have to choose, I think we want Betances.

As for the Constitution, I don’t think there’s any way it’s going to give us a clear-cut answer. Even court precedent is hazy on this. I guess the Supreme Court of Connecticut is just going to have to throw something out — or up — as a decision in this case.