Evening star., 1947-05-07
Search and Seizure

SeorCh and SeiZure
The Supreme Court for some years
has outlawed the use of evidence
obtained by'tapping a telephone line
leading into mans home. Yet now
the court says that a police agent
lawfully arresting man in his home
may proceed to ransack his house
from top to bottom and prosecute
him on the basis OF evidence that
is turned up, even though that evi-
dence Is in no way related to the
offense for which the arrest was
made and the search begun.
To the layman, the distinction is
one which tortures reason. For at
best, or perhaps one should say at
worst, wire tapping is restricted
form OF search. But the sort OF
thing which the court has sanctioned
IN this latest decision would seem
to raise possibilities OF search and
seizure which, by comparison, would
make Of the wire Taper an inoffen-
sive creature intent upon minding
his own business.
The case before the court involved
one George Harris, under suspicion
in a mail-fraud complaint. Five
agents Of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, with 4 warrant for
Harris arrest but without search
warrant, went to the mans apart
ment and found him in the living
room. For five hours the agents
searched the apartment, seeking
some stolen checks and other items
which they hoped would have
bearing on the mail-fraud case. They
did not find them. But as the search
was nearing its end, they did find
In a bureau drawer sealed envelope
marked George Harris-Personal
Papers When opened 1t was found
to contain certain notice of (selec-
tive service) classification cards and
registration certificates. Harris, over
his protest that the search and SCI
zure were illegal, was indicted and
convicted OF the unlawful possession,
concealr, vt and alteration of the
cards a., certificates.
There is no doubt that Harris
was guilty. The question is whether
the FBI agents, operating without
a search warrant, violated the
Fourth Amendments guarantee of
"the right Of the people to be secuse
in their persons. houses, papers
and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures" In other
words, at what point does a search
and seizure become unreasonable?
The Supreme Court Justices di-
vided five to four on this question.
The majority, upholding the con-
viction, decreed that under all the
circumstances there had not been
such an unreasonable search and
seizure as to violate the Constitu-
ton. The minority, while not seeing
eye to eye on all points, were in
emphatic disagreement with this
main contention of the majority.
The four disSenters raise interest
ing points and possibilities. For
example, if the agents had secured
a search warrant in the selective
service. case, they would have had
to describe the cards and certificates
OF which they had never heard. Had
Harris been arrested on the street,
his place OF residence could not have
been searched. The majority de-
cision, in Justice Frankfurter's view,
achieves the novel and startling
result of making the scope of search
without warrant broader than an
authorized search" And, according
to Justice Murphy, the decision
means that "a search warrant is not
only unnecessary; 1t is a hindrance."
The practical effect of all this is
to leave the layman trapped between
learned lines of fire. He can hardly
be expected to know who is right and
who is wrong. And it is OF small
comfort for him to discover that
high court Of distinguished judges
gives visible evidence of the same
uncertainty.