Evening star., 1961-06-20

State prosecutors today faced
the same problem as their
Federal colleagues in getting
illegally seized evidence before
the courts.
The Supreme Court, in a
historic decision winding up its
term yesterday, ruled that all
evidence obtained by unconsti-
tutional searches and seizures
can no longer be admitted at
State court trials.
The decision extended to the
States a rule that has been
applied in Federal courts for
half a century. At the same
time, however, it overturned a
1919 decision Of the high court.
The case, which prompted
five justices to express them
selves, contributed to a record
breaking wordage for a single
days work. Court aides re-
ported that the court set its
record with $50 pages Of opin-
ions in the 10 decisions it
handed down yesterday.
Only twice on its last day did
the court achieve unanimity.
-Four of the decisions were
clearly by a 5-4 margin and a
fifth was by the same margin
on all but the result.
That fifth case was the Bit
terly contested one voiding the
courts 1949 position on evi-
dence in State courts.
Clark for Majority
Justice Clark, writing the
majority opinion, and Justice
Harlan, for the dissent. even
differed on how many States
would be affected by the new
rule of evidence.
Justice Clark reported that
while in 1949 almost two-thirds
Of the States were opposed to
using the rule of excluding il
legally obtained evidence, more
than half of those who have
passed on the question since
that time have followed the
long standing Federal rule.
Justice Harlan, however, said
that a recent survey indicated
that half the States still ad-
here to the comnion-law rule
against excluding evidence and
Maryland follows the old rule
on felonies.
The 1949 decision overturned
by the high court provided
that in a prosecution in a State
court for a State crime, the
Fourteenth Amendment does
not forbid the admission of
evidence obtained by an un-
reasonable search and seizure.
Now, the court has ruled, the
Constitution does make such
evidence inadmisSible in a
State court.
Justice Clark described the
decision as closing the only
courtroom door remaining open
to evidence secured by official
lawlessnesS."
Sees Peril to Nation
Justice Clark argued that
until now. Federal prosecutors
could make no use of illegally
seized evidence but a States
attorney across the street
could. Thus, the State, by ad-
mitting unlawfully seized evi-
dence, serves to encourage dis
obedience to the Federal Con-
stitution, he said.
He acknowledged that in
some cases the accused will
undoubtedly go free as a result
of this decision but he added:
THE criminal goes free, If he
must, but it is the law that sets
him free. Nothing can destroy
a government more quickly
than it's failure to observe its
own laws, or worse, its disre-
gard of the charter of its own
existence"
Justice Harlan, joined by
Justices Frankfurter and Whit.
taker, contended that five
members of the court had
reached out" to overturn the
1949 case when there was a
simpler and less far-reaching
constitutional question they
could have decided.
The case at issue involved q
search Of a Cleveland woman'S
home which revealed the pres
ence Of obscene materials. The
woman was convicted under an
Ohio law making the mere
knowing possession of obscene
material a crime.
Sought Reversal -:
Justice Stewart wanted to
reverse the case because he
thought the Ohio law was un-
constitutional but he did not
join the majority-or the dis
Se1tnrS eithnr-nn tha ayyi-