Document: 365 U.S. 381 81 S.Ct. 632 5 L.Ed.2d 620 Bernard WILSON, Petitioner,v.Donald F. SCHNETTLER, Arthur E. Doll, and Robert Waltz. No. 182. Argued Dec. 15, 1960. Decided Feb. 27, 1961. Rehearing Denied April 17, See 890, 1025. Mr. James J. Doherty, Skokie, Ill., for petitioner. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., respondents. Justice WHITTAKER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondents, who are federal narcotics agents, arrested petitioner without a warrant in Cook County, Illinois, and, course an incidental search, found narcotic drugs on his person which they seized. Respondents then to County authorities confined him county jail. In due course, grand jury returned indictment charging with possessing violation Illinois statute. Soon after arraignment plea 'not guilty,' moved court order suppressing use as evidence impending criminal trial. After full hearing, including taking (not contained this record), denied motion. 2 Before case was reached trial, brought present action against respondents Federal District Court Chicago impound (though he did not allege that have possession them) enjoin their use, from testifying, at trial state court. The very meager complaint alleged, addition facts we stated, only few relating petitioner's arrest,1 believes 'respondents will be called testify (the criminal) unlawfully had seized by * *.' It concluded prayer relief stated. 3 dismiss failure claim upon could granted. granted motion dismissed action. On appeal, Seventh Circuit affirmed. 275 F.2d 932. To consider judgment is repugnant controlling rules decisions Court, certiorari. 363 840. 4 We properly must Although alleged arrest made warrant, there no allegation it probable cause. absence such courts below not, nor can we, assume cause believe committed or committing offense. And if cause, arrest, though lawful subsequent search seizure were validly incidentally arrest. Weeks v. United States, 232 383, 392, 34 341, 344, 58 L.Ed. 652; Carroll 267 132, 158, 45 280, 287, 69 543; Agnello 269 20, 30, 46 4, 5, 70 145; Giordenello 357 480, 483, 78 1245, 1248, 1503; Draper 358 307, 310—311, 79 329, 331—332, 327.2 For reason alone failed 6 Nor allege, even conclusional terms, does plain adequate remedy law redress any possible illegality seizure. Indeed, allegations affirmatively show has actually prosecuted there, but point adverse interlocutory order. That court, whose jurisdiction first attached, retains over matter exclusion all other certainly Court—until its duty been fully performed, Harkrader Wadley, 172 148, 164, 19 119, 125, 43 399;3 Peck Jenness, 7 How. 612, 624—625, 12 841,4 determine well as, better than, If, adheres suppression issue prejudice, appeal Supreme State, right need petition 'review questions involved.' Douglas City Jeannette, Pa., 319 157, 163, 63 877, 881, 87 1324. therefore clear pending There still another cardinal why proper complaint. live two sovereignties. Each own system interpret enforce laws, although common territory. These perform respective functions embarrassing conflicts unless adopted avoid them. Such adopted. One them accused 'should permitted machinery one sovereignty obstruct other, necessary operation prevents having fair trial.' Ponzi Fessenden, 258 254, 260, 42 309, 310, 66 607. Another should exercise discretionary power 'to interfere embarrass threatened proceedings save those exceptional cases call interposition equity prevent irreparable injury imminent supra, page 881. 8 By action, seeks case, also completely thwart relitigating de novo already litigated 'If sanction intervention, would expose every State prosecution insupportable disruption. Every question procedural process law—with far-flung undefined range—would invite flanking movement resort forum, review issue. Asserted unconstitutionality impaneling selection petit juries, appoint counsel, admission confession, creation unfair atmosphere, misconduct (and, may add, ruling motions suppress evidence, competency witnesses testimony)—all provide ready opportunities, conscientious counsel might bound employ, subvert orderly, effective local crime courts. suggest these difficulties recognize solution.' Stefanelli Minard, 342 117, 123 124, 72 118, 121—122, 96 138. 9 Notwithstanding this, contends averments sufficient entitle prayed under principles announced Rea 350 214, 76 292, 100 233. But do invoke approach case. hold, contention assumes, lawfully officers inadmissible, about seizure, prosecutions. concept run counter express command Congress shall cooperate States investigations 21 U.S.C. § 198(a), U.S.C.A. 198(a). situation here just reverse Rea. There, indicted unlawful acquisition marihuana, Rule 41(e) Rules Criminal Procedure (18 41(e), 18 U.S.C.A.), marihuana finding accused's illegal issued Commissioner, suppress. effect order, provisions Rule, suppressed property 'shall admissible hearing Cf. Reina 364 507, 510—511, 262—263, 249. Despite arresting thereafter caused rearrested charged, same State's statute, make testimony earlier 41(e). Thereupon, thwarting conduct. affirmed appeal. certiorari, acting supervisory rules, extends policing (their) requirements making certain observed,' 217, 294, reversed judgment, because 'A agent (had) violated (and further violate) governing searches seizures—Rules prescribed submission Congress. 327 821 et seq.' 294. 10 How different case! Here showing ever taken rule yielded incident proper. court's finding—the involved matter—is way. admitted 11 dismissed. Affirmed. 13 STEWART, concurring. 14 I base affirmance ground technically deficient failing recite talismanic phrase 'without cause.' think lacked requested injunction, either 28 2283, formulated 399. seems me 233, established Courts power.* 15 join affirming judgment. warranting equitable standards 122, 121, 138, As Court's points out, factors justified issuance injunction here. 16 DOUGLAS, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 17 judge respondents' motion1 'amended declaratory judgment' following allegations: Petitioner respondents, agents Bureau Narcotics, acted warrant. He searched time him. Though imprisoned, neither before Commissioner charged States. Instead, laws Illinois. unsuccessfully attempted exclude where 'the forum applied applied.' based powers enforcement agencies.' Alleging respondents,' asked, first, whether illegally second, event illegal, impounding testifying 'in respect so seized' proceedings. allegations, liberally construed, supported seeks. held proceeding fruits search. 'The obligation obey (of Procedure). They drawn innocent guilty alike. prescribe enforcement. designed protect privacy citizen, strict set seizures satisfied. policy defeated flout act proceedings.' Id., pages 217—218, Under Procedure, instructed hear aggrieved (where) warrant.'2 Implicit judicial Fourth Amendment Acts limit Judicial less invoked than acted, i.e., when apply That, understand, teaching 20 said thus law. 26 7607(2), 7607(2). out what way 'legal remedy' (i.e., court) inadequate. discretion grant deny relief, refuse circumstances, especially since prosecution. none objections taken. If appear legal law, surely magic cause' summarily cut off.3 At most, defect complained justify being required amend pleading. 22 Petitioner's inadequacy easily disposed of. invoking, proceeding, 'supervisory powers' administration lodged entrusted tribunals, India. First decision create system, complete unto itself. Some enforceable tribunals. e.g., Testa Katt, 330 386, 67 810, 91 967. among Since chosen courts, compliance cannot proceeding. within limits authority, whether, constitution, reasonable one.4 Supremacy Clause give where, example, procedure violates Constitution. Yet Wolf People Colorado, 338 25, 1359, 93 1782, excluding Amendment, imposed requirement forum—indeed available litigation requirement—is 23 overrule objection5 restrains intermeddling proceedings, Section 22836 prohibits, 'an stay court.' What sought applicable here: 24 asked officials agencies No official. who, told, plans basis 216—217, 25 Rea, interference, any, indirect placing behavior. considerations led like rationale specific supervising Procedure. seq. observed.' now distinguished contacts existed beyond bare fact actors additional three: (1) purported (2) An filed subsequently (3) A while pending, 27 Those factual differences lead result decisive factor, indeed relevant different. victim obtained specifically provides. filed. Again, entitled regarding Go-Bart Importing Co. 282 358, 51 153, 75 374. 'flouting' if, situations, had, prepared 29 sure, case; commenced prior legality officers. affords lawless police relief. When relies circumstance repudiates decision, viz.: substantive 'flouted' 30 judiciary special protecting people let alone, except warrants This relation control lawlessly invade individual citizens reaches far back into history. ominous note, themselves instrument oppression. colonial Otis, Jr., infamous 'writs assistance.'7 played honorable role protection privacy. Warrants, start form extended officials, become means individual. officer interposed between suspicious official citizen.8 active. 391—392, 652, said: 31 forged doctrine, firmly entrenched, admit evidence.9 doctrine core outlines reflected unsympathetically reject today. 32 Our reflect belief judges distinct mission actively Johnson 333 10, 14, 68 367, 369, 92 436: 33 'Any assumption support magistrate's disinterested determination reduce nullity leave people's homes secure officers.' particular view deeplying implies continuous supervision officers, quite passive play some spheres. otherwise legal, magistrate expressed Trupiano 334 699, 1229, 1663, McDonald 335 451, 191, 153. stated 'search used wherever reasonably practicable.' 709, 1234. occasionally retreated, Rabinowitz, 339 56, 430, 94 653; Frank Maryland, 359 360, 804, 877; Abel 362 80 683, 668, show. basic philosophy supra. wrote saying '(t)he Rules,' thought meant obedience offer matrix.10 difficult limited situations 'process' provides warrant,' evidence. 35 forsake tell keep hands off, wink new lawlessness. free violate individual's privacy, provided turn evasion consequences serious dissent. inconsequential tides fashion open invitation 'flout' desire, forget break willynilly, repair apply; exclusionary apply. govern victim. commanded Amendment.11 Many permit prosecutions barred tendered prosecutions.12 tender regard federal-state relations ultimate Today lower giving carte blanche down doors, ransack homes, seize heart's content—so long away try there. lawlessness join. respect, circumstances developed: '(a) testified building surveillance information sold. '(b) saw your enter same; short later observed whereupon '(c) oath entered not; him, arrest.' Article II, 6, Constitution, S.H.A., protects unreasonable substantially language Amendment. interpretation constitutional provision rule, similar followed makes accord system. See, La Bostrie, Ill.2d 617, 620—623, 153 N.E.2d 570, 572 574; Tillman, 525, 529—530, 116 346 347. 'When each take matter, tribunal attaches holds it, until performed exhausted; applies alike both civil cases.' 125. 'It too require citation authorities, plaintiff prosecute suit once foundation, merely comity, necessity. enjoin, retort parties remedy; liable contempt one, dare proceed other.' 624—625. specified three grounds. Of them, lack subject matter. dissenters agreed exists. 219, 295. reads: move district return anything insufficient face, described (4) believing existence grounds issued, (5) executed. receive restored detention had. opportunity therefor exist defendant aware motion, entertain hearing.' Appeals narrow speaks 'allegedly search,' places '(d)ecisive (which) distinguish instant proceeding.' 932, 933. aside raised incorporation standard guide determinations Standard Oil Calif. Johnson, 316 481, 62 1168, 86 1611; Grod, 385 Ill. 584, 586, 53 591, 593 same)'. stress asks 'declaratory quote speak Aetna Life Ins. Hartford, Conn. Haworth, 300 227, 240—241, 57 461, 463—464, 617; Brillhart Excess America, 491, 494 495, 1173, 1175—1176, 1620; Public Service Comm. Utah Wycoff Co., 344 237, 241—245, 73 236, 239 241, 97 291. applicable. penumbra 'case controversy.' Discretion, exists all, stem general notions availability remedies. request more inartistic demand 'receive motion.' denominated mere surplusage. 399; Ex parte Young, 209 123, 441, 52 714. Boyd 616, 524, 528—529, 746; Harris 331 145, 155, 157—159 (dissenting opinion), 1098, 1104—1106, 1399; 374, 376—381 812, 813—816, 877. evolution whereby became protectors took place England. '(F)or acts, examination fact.' Hale, History Pleas Crown (1st Am. ed. 1847), 150. put limitations restraints andauthority, forever people, persons, houses, papers, effects, guise alike, force obligatory intrusted our laws.' Silverthorne Lumber 251 385, 40 182, 64 319; Gouled 255 298, 41 261, 65 647; 153; Taylor 286 1, 466, 951; 1098; 367; Brinegar 160, 1302, 1879; Miller 301, 1190, 1332; 327; Henry 361 98, 168, 134; Elkins 206, 1737, 1669; Rios 253, 1431, 1688. 'proceedings' meaning enabling 3771, 3771. remains same, analogy independent rights clear. creates exemption stand ards Cooperate may, so. Texas Code Crim.Proc., Art. 727a, amended 1953, 53d Leg., p. 669, c. Vernon's Ann. C.C.P. art. 727a; Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513. Gonzales, 356 Mich. 247, N.W.2d 16.

Category: 0