Document: 389 U.S. 560 88 S.Ct. 660 19 L.Ed.2d 770 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Petitioner,v.Donald M. PAINTEN. No. 37. Argued Oct. 18, 1967. Decided Jan. 15, 1968. Elliot L. Richardson, Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Louis Nordlinger, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 In 1958 respondent was tried and convicted in Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts, armed robbery of a bank related offenses. He appealed, 1961 his conviction affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court sub nom. Commonwealth v. Binkiewicz, 342 Mass. 740, 175 N.E.2d 473. 2 Respondent eventually filed petition writ habeas corpus Federal District Court. Testimony taken on December 30, 1965. It ruled that respondent's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated entry into apartment, arrest, search seizure certain articles apartment which were introduced evidence against him. Accordingly, it set aside ordered release.1 Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081 (1961). The Appeals affirmed.2 We granted certiorari because importance constitutional issues presented.3 3 At time trial 1958, Massachusetts did not have an exclusionary rule obtained illegal or seizure, Wilkins, 243 356, 138 N.E. 11 (1923); Spofford, 343 703, 706, 180 673, 675 (1962), parties focus upon now before us. evidentiary hearing 1965 took place almost eight years after events. 4 After oral argument study record, we reached conclusion record is sufficiently clear specific to permit decision important questions involved this case. therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Smith Mississippi, 373 238, 83 1265, 10 321 (1963). 5 Dismissed. Mr. Justice FORTAS, concurring. 7 dissent written my Brother WHITE, with whom Brothers HARLAN, STEWART join, impels me add note. I agree Court's action dismissing having adequate disposition case terms its problems. WHITE'S opinion disagreement point. would remand purpose seems be unreal: is, hold inquiry, event, 'whether Officer Rufo could believed bag abandoned whether searched guns observed.' This inquiry—at late date—is elusive attempt capture last night's moonbeam. 8 As some colleagues often said, do sit court criminal appeals review judgments state courts. question instant comes here result federal proceedings. should consider if, only can dispose principle. based sound premise use our jurisdiction express views point cannot inadequacies realistically remedied. 9 ordinarily feel necessary file comment vein. present situation, am troubled lest give impression he HARLAN believe below erred relying inferences undisclosed intent officers. case, disagree position stated issue, but detailed consideration disclosed infirmity precludes orderly dissenting. certiorari1 law applied facts found both it2 Court3 raised troubling difficult about restrictions imposed may admitted at trial. says, quite rightly, stale unclear. have, however, United States approved Appeals. Determining what legal consequences follow from those difficult, task normally entrusted accept two courts decide presented 12 relevant foundbelow are follows. Two police officers, suspicion committed felonies probable cause them, went door apartment. Their motive, found, arrest search, their investigation provided make constitutional. plan communicated respondent, who when came led officers wished speak Told no more than ask questions, asked them wait minute, closed door, tossed paper onto fire escape, returned, let enter. nothing questions;4 while doing another officer, posted below, seen drop, walked through out where bullets bag. arrested undertook complete incident arrest. 13 On these concluded '(s)ince they entered retroactively validate reliance discovered entry.' 252 F.Supp., 857. agreed, saying 'set (respondent) hope develop,' 'since actions improper, entitled fruits.' 368 F.2d, 144. thus fact truthful telling intentions required policemen barred admission 'fruit' unlawful conduct. 14 must rest view policeman's intention offend Constitution if achieve goal other way contaminates all later behavior. us syllogism although words requested asking policeman—on being allowed enter 'fruits' otherwise lawful request question—the window street—should usable State. policeman willing, conduct developed justifying unlawfully finding crime. 15 That such makes sense apparent one sees context abstruse application rule, available encourage compliance commands Amendment. See 652—653, 1690, 1691, Because wish deter searching without warrant, bar McNamara ransacking warrant basis warrantless search. expanded opinions defensible felt acting lawfully plan—the attitude mind—of going further produces insufficient results. might act impure plots mind, sufficient excluding, supposed service Amendment, probative actions—if thoughts—entirely accord requirements. addition, sending expedition minds produce grave fruitless misallocation judicial resources. voted grant subjective require exclusion conduct, dismiss opportunity so stating remains. 16 A second ground support officers' policemen's untruths failure tell plan—'vitiated' consent entry. with, understand, obtain home explaining occupants right deny admission, even conducting authorized investigation. But understand permissible given response mere uttered wishing says wishes intends more. If does will fruits action. much has told occupant do, less willing occupant's occurred; there reason exclude learns consented doing. 17 There remains possibility confinement Constitution. When permission Had looked closets drawers, lying view, violation containing escape attached respondent's, alone seize it. Amendment's protection extends 'effects' well 'persons, houses, papers.' Of course 'abandoned' property seized, Abel States, 362 217, 241, 80 683, 698, 668 (1960), neither inquired reasonably instead thought temporarily abandon it, cf. Rios 364 253, 262, n. 6, 1431, 1437, 1688 (1960). abandoned, relevant: saw contained opened then guns. Since nor issues, vacate judgment determine observed.5 F.Supp. 851 (D.C.Mass.1966). F.2d 142 (C.A.1st Cir. 1966). 386 931, 87 955, 805 (1967). One officer 'stuck hand into' pocket companion, Ash, 'found $200.00 ten twenty dollar bills stuffed pocket.' 856. apparently trial, Ash justification influenced intentions. issuing reasons gave, nevertheless inadequate respect issue abandonment. error grounds relied Appeals—and question—then reversed unless issuance behest prisoner. unclear possible additional ground—here guns—and undesirable reopened clarified, simply reversed, erroneous effect. Habeas Painten released clearly justifies judgment.

Category: 0