Evening star., 1947-05-11
Court Ruling Raises
Civil Rights Issue
Blow at Fourth Amendment Seen
In. Harris Case Decision

Blow at Fourth Amendment Seen
In, Harris Case Decision
By Gerard D. Reilly
Probably no decision Of the Supreme
Court Ii recent years has caused more
concern to defenders Of civil rights
than the majority opinion rendered this
week In Harris VS.. United States. One
OF the most cherished heritages Of the
common law is the principle that "a
mans home Is his castle. It Is en-
bodied In the Constitution by the inn.
munities guaranteed in the fourth
amendment against unlawful searches
and seizures. The eloquent dissents Of
four Of the Justices indicate that in It's
latest decision the court has done
violence to this historic immunity.
Siice the prohibition era, when the
lawlessness OF law enforcement officers
created many controversies with respect
to the violation Of constitutional rights,
the number Of fourth amendment cases
which have come before our highest
court has been relatively small At that
time, with one deviation, the court was
fairly steadfast In holding that convic-
tions for violations OF the Volstead Act
would be set aside where the evidence
in support of the conviction had been
obtained by ransacking the premises
without search warrant. The Ian
guage Of the argument itself is quite
explicit in this respect
Last June fourth amendment case,
involving the seizure of some gasoline
ration coupons, provoked bitter con-
troversy within the court. This was the
Davis case It involved the conviction
of a filling station proprietor for the
Illegal possession OF gasoline ration docu-
ments In that case two OPA agents
after buying gas above the ceiling price
and without coupons arrested the de-
fendant for that specific offense. The
agents then accompanied him into his
Office where he was told to turn over
any coupon books in his possession. Un-
der protest he unlocked his filing cabinet
and handed over these documents.
4 y X
It subsequently appeared that he i'm
properly obtained these documents and
he was tried and convicted OF unlawful
possession of these coupons. The con-
viction was sustained by the Supreme
Court on the ground that his constitu-
tional rights had not been invaded since
the documents In question technically
remained the property of OPA and
were therefore, in the view of ma
jority of the court, public documents
which the officers had right to inspect
at any time. Mr.. Justice Frankfurter
wrote dissent in which he was joined
by Mr.. Justice Murphy and Mr.. Justice
Rutledge In which the literal language
Of the fourth amendment was empha-
sized:
"The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and ef-
fects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to
be searched. and the persons or things
to be seized"
Despite the vigor of the dissenting
opinion, little significance was attached
to the case for the grounds on which
the arrest was made did not differ sub
stantially from the charge on which the
conviction rested. Moreover, the lower
court had not believed the defendants
testimony that the documents were TAX
en- from him under duress, and Mr..
Justice Douglas in the majority opinion
had stressed not only the public docu-
ment point but also the fact that the
discriminating papers were kept at the
place of business rather than in de-
fendant's private residence.
It Is against the background OF the
Davis case, however. that the full i'm
port of the latest decision must be
appraised. In the case of Harris two FBI
agents had obtained warrants for his
arrest charging him with violation Of
the mail fraud statute and the National
Stolen Property Act These officers sus-
pected that Harris was involved in a
scheme to defraud an oil company
by negotiating and cashing forged
check in the sum of $4,000. The de-
fendant was arrested in the living room
of his apartment and handcuffed. The
agents then conducted a systematic
ransacking of all four rooms in the
apartment and later stated that they
were looking for two Cancelled checks
which it was believed Harris had stolen.
Neither these checks nor anything
bearing upon the suspected forgery was
brought to light and the defendant has
never been prosecuted for the crimes
charged in the warrants for arrest. The
agents did find in bureau drawer II
draft registration certificates and eight
notices of draft classification. The
crime for which he was convicted re-
lated solely to the unlawful possession,
concealment and alteration of these
documents.
When the Davis case had been decided
of the court were sitting, as Mr.. Justice
Jackson was In Nuremberg and Chief
Justice Stones place had not been
filled. The appeal from the conviction
therefore gave the full court for the
first time an opportunity to pass
squarely upon some Of the issues which
the Frankfurter dissent had raised in
the Davis case. Indeed the facts in
the two cases were sufficiently differ
ent so that even the majority OF the
justices in the Davis opinion might
have distinguished the Harris case on
any of the following grounds: (a) the
seizure OF the documents was under
taken without the consent of the de-