Document: 342 U.S. 117 72 S.Ct. 118 96 L.Ed. 138 STEFANELLI et al.v.MINARD al. No. 2. Argued Oct. 16, 1951. Decided Dec. 3, 1951, Mr. Mordecai M. Merker, New York City, for petitioners. Messrs. Richard J. Congleton, Charles Handler, Newark, N.J., respondents. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioners asked equitable relief from Federal District Court to prevent fruit an unlawful search by Jersey police being used in evidence a State criminal trial. The suit was brought under R.S. § 1979, 8 U.S.C. 43, U.S.C.A. providing redress against 'Every person who, color any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, Territory, subjects, causes be subjected, citizen United States other within jurisdiction thereof deprivation rights, privileges, immunities secured Constitution and laws * *.'1 Upon respondents' motion, dismissed complaints, 'it appearing that plaintiffs have not exhausted their remedies state law.' Appeals affirmed. 184 F.2d 575. Since it raises important questions touching Civil Rights Act context our federal system we case here. 341 930, 71 802, 95 1360. 2 Two suits arising out separate series events, were consolidated are before us as one case. facts do differ materially. Newark officers entered petitioners' homes without legal authority. There they seized property petitioners useful bookmaking, misdemeanor N.J.Rev. Stat. 2:135—3, N.J.S.A. It is disputed these searches, if made officers, would violated Fourth Amendment. Stefanelli arrested, arraigned subsequently indicted bookmaking. He pleaded guilty. petitioners, after hearing, held on same charge await action Essex County grand jury. All allege destined them proceedings. no move courts suppress evidence, justifying failure so ground existing law admissible regard illegality its procurement. 3 invoke decision Wolf v. People Colorado, 338 25, 69 1359, 93 1782. precise holding 'that prosecution court crime Fourteenth Amendment does forbid admission obtained unreasonable seizure.' Id., at page 33, 1364, Although thus narrowly confined, course said: 'The security one's privacy arbitrary intrusion police—which core Amendment—is basic free society. therefore implicit 'the concept ordered liberty' such enforceable through Due Process Clause. Accordingly, hesitation saying affirmatively sanction incursion into run counter guaranty Amendment.' pages 27—28, 1361, disagreement consequences this view, but none validity. We adhere it. founded argument 4 If forbids searches seizures States, contend, seizure subjects victims deprivation, law, right, privilege immunity which afforded 1979. Appropriate redress, urge, equity order bar further use 5 occasion consider constitutional unless answers indispensable disposition cause us. In view take, need decide whether complaint states For even power grant here sought may fairly constitutionally derived generality language Act, sustain claim disregard exercise discretion when, matter jurisdiction, balance wisdom using power. Here considerations governing touch perhaps most sensitive source friction between Nation, namely, active administration crimes solely States. 6 hold should refuse intervene proceedings when claimed been seizure. maxim will enjoin summarizes centuries weighty experience Anglo-American law. impressively reinforced merely relations coordinate political authorities issue. special delicacy adjustment preserved own has historic concern congressional enactment, see, e.g., 28 §§ 1341, 1342, 2283, 2284(5), 2284(5). This reflected decisions Court, governed explicit requirement, bearing State's enforcement E.g., Watson Buck, 313 387, 61 962, 85 1416; Beal Missouri Pacific R. Co., 312 45, 418, 577; Spielman Motor Co. Dodge, 295 89, 55 678, 79 1322; Fenner Boykin, 271 240, 46 492, 70 927. received striking confirmation where countervailing interest involved. Maryland Soper (No. 1), 270 9, 185, 449; 2), 36, 192, 459; 3), 44, 194, 462.2 7 These informed construction Act. given rise differences application Such inhere attempt construe remaining fragments comprehensive dismembered partial repeal invalidity, loosely blindly drafted first instance,3 drawing whole itself scope meaning. Regardless particular cases, however, Court's lodestar adjudication statute 'should construed respect proper government enforcement.' Screws 325 91, 108, 65 1031, 1039, 89 1495. Only last term reiterated conviction 'was centralize upset system.' Collins Hardyman, 651, 658, 937, 940, 1253. Discretionary refusal interfere with devices sanctioned preserving balance. Douglas City Jeannette, 319 157, 63 877, 87 1324. And very section now invoked, withheld recognizing comparable create damages. Compare Giles Harris, 189 475, 23 639, 47 909, Lane Wilson, 307 268, 59 872, 83 1281. supra, speaking Chief Stone, 'Congress, legislation, adopted policy, certain well defined statutory exceptions, leaving generally trial cases laws, subject review Hence, discretionary powers conform policy refusing embarrass threatened save those exceptional call interposition irreparable injury clear imminent; *.' 163, 881, 1324.4 No injury, imminent, At worst, suppressed provide basis courts. conviction, held, deprive due process supra. 9 limit restraining prosecutions threatened, how much more cogent interference once begun. must refrain staying outright try central question validity based, reluctant piecemeal collateral issues.5 10 exercising invoked doctrinaire alertness protect sphere enforcing intervention, expose every insupportable disruption. Every procedural law—with far-flung undefined range—would invite flanking movement resort forum, determine Asserted unconstitutionality impaneling selection grand6 petit7 juries, appoint counsel,8 confession,9 creation unfair atmosphere,10 misconduct court11—all ready opportunities, conscientious counsel might bound employ, subvert orderly, effective local To suggest difficulties recognize solution.12 11 Holmes dealt problem situation especially appealing: relation Courts delicate occupied thoughts statesmen judges hundred years can disposed summary statement justice requires me cut red tape intervene.' Memorandum Sacco-Vanzetti Case, Transcript Record (Henry Holt & 1929) 5516. A judgment below 12 Affirmed. 13 BLACK CLARK concur result. 14 MINTON took part consideration 15 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 16 Murphy, Rutledge, I voted 1782, result excluded trials. retrospect views expressed Murphy Rutledge grow persuasiveness. them. think propriety step illegal evidence. admitted second enjoined make empty hollow guarantee far concerned. shall liable party injured equity, proceeding redress.' Jurisdiction founded, citizenship parties amount controversy, 1343(3), 1343(3): district original civil authorized commenced person: '(3) custom Congress equal rights citizens all persons States.' Hague C.I.O., 496, 954, 1423. despite obvious revenue unimpeded opposition, duly respected carefully limiting removing involving who 'on account act done (their) office.' 643, 1442, 1442. recently commented circumstances surrounding enactment legislation Williams, 70, 74, 581, 583, 758, 657, 939, distinguished Jeannette case: 'In respects differs 501, 502, 957, 958, 1423, officials forcibly broke up meetings complainants many instances deported trial.' 164, consistently demonstrated orderly judicial not, absence compelling broken determination issues See, 1291, 1291; Cobbledick 309 323, 60 540, 84 783 (appeals 'final decisions' courts); 1441(c), 1441(c) (removal 'separable controversies'); cf. Hurn Oursler, 289 238, 53 586, 77 1148. See Smith Texas, 311 128, 84. Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 25 664; Pierre Louisiana, 306 354, 536, 757. Powell Alabama, 287 55, 158. Watts Indiana, 49, 1347, 1801. Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 43 265, 67 543. Townsend Burke, 334 736, 68 1252, 92 1690. reach us, wanting fairness attacked lower 1979 related sections. refer way illustration. An damages sustained motion dismiss plaintiff alleged she arrested warrant, defendants, peace constable, maliciously appointment biased jury subjected her fraudulent resulting reversed appeal. McShane Moldovan, Cir., 172 1016; Picking Pennsylvania 151 240 (complaint seeking false arrest detention violation Uniform Extradition dismiss). But see Campo Niemeyer, 182 115; Lyons Baker, 180 893; Bottone Lindsley, 170 705; Mitchell Greenough, 184; Llano Del Rio Anderson-Post Hardwood Lumber D.C., F.Supp. 382, affirmed per curiam, 187 235. Closer injunctions grounded contention phases unfair. refused intervene. Cooper Hutchinson, 119 (refusal allow defendant his choosing; remanded retain pending exhaustion remedies); Ackerman International Longshoremen's Warehousemen's Union, 860, reversing, 82 65, had discrimination panel; McGuire Amrein, 101 414 wire tap evidence; alternate ground); Erickson Hogan, 94 459 (suppression seizure); Refoule Ellis, 74 336 (court allegedly coerced confession although enjoining future arrest, interrogation plaintiff); Eastus Bradshaw, 788. Hoffman O'Brien, 88 490, want justiciable controversy.

Category: 8