Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/102108/alderman-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2017-06-26 12:32:10
Document Index: 468817478

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 605', '§ 605', '§ 2518', '§ 3500', '§ 2196', '§ 2518']

Alderman Vs United States - Citation 102108 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Alderman Vs. United States - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/102108CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnJan-29-1968Case Number394 U.S. 165AppellantAldermanRespondentUnited StatesExcerpt:
alderman v. united states - 394 u.s. 165 (1968)
certiorari granted, and case decided march 10, 1969.
after petitioners in no. 133, o.t., 1967, were convicted of conspiring to transmit murderous threats in interstate commerce, they..... Judgment:
After petitioners in No. 133, O.T., 1967, were convicted of conspiring to transmit murderous threats in interstate commerce, they discovered that one petitioner's place of business had been subject to electronic surveillance by the Government. This Court refused to accept the Government's
determination that "no overheard conversation in which any of the petitioners participated is arguably relevant to this prosecution," and vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings (390 U.S. 136). The Government moved to modify the order, urging that surveillance records should be subjected to
inspection by the trial judge, who would then turn over to petitioners only those materials arguably relevant to their prosecution. In Nos. 11 and 197, petitioners, who were convicted of national security violations, raised similar questions relating to the use of eavesdropped information.
1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp.
conversations occurred on his premises, whether or not he was present or participated therein.
-512. Pp.
3. If the surveillance is found to have been unlawful, and if a petitioner is found to have standing, the Government must disclose to him the records of those overheard conversations which the Government was not entitled to use in building its case against him. Pp.
394 U. S. 180
(a) The task of determining those items which might have made a substantial contribution to the preparation of the Government's case is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely solely upon the
examination by the trial court. Pp.
(b) The trial court should, where appropriate, place defendants and their counsel under enforceable orders against unwarranted disclosure of the materials they are entitled to inspect. P.
(c) Defendants will not have an unlimited license to rummage in the Government's files, as they may need or be entitled to nothing beyond the specified records of overheard conversations and the right to cross-examine the appropriate officials regarding the connection between those records and the prosecution's case. P.
electronic eavesdropping, [
] we granted the petition for rehearing over the objection of the United States that "no overheard conversation in which any of the petitioners participated is arguably relevant to this prosecution." In our per curiam opinion,
390 U. S. 390
U.S. 136 (1968), we refused to accept the
determination of relevance by the Department of Justice in lieu of adversary proceedings in the District Court, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The United States subsequently filed a motion to modify that order. Although accepting the Court's order insofar as it required judicial determination of whether any of the prosecution's evidence was the product of illegal surveillance, the United States urged that, in order to protect innocent third parties participating or referred to in irrelevant conversations overheard by the Government, surveillance records should first be subjected to
inspection by the trial judge, who would then turn over to the petitioners and their counsel only those materials arguably relevant to their prosecution. Petitioners opposed the motion, and the matter was argued before the Court last Term. We then set the case down for reargument at the opening of the current Term,
392 U. S. 919
(1968), the attention of the parties being directed to the disclosure issue and the question of
standing to object to the Government's use of the fruits of illegal surveillance. [
Ivanov petition to raise an issue similar to that which was presented in No. 133, O.T. 1967. [
] Following the first argument in
Alderman (sub nom. Kolod v. United States),
the petitions for certiorari of both Ivanov and Butenko were granted, limited to questions nearly identical to those involved in the reargument of the
The exclusionary rule fashioned in
(1961), excludes from a criminal trial any evidence seized from the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Fruits of such evidence are excluded as well.
-392 (1920). Because the Amendment now affords protection against the uninvited ear, oral statements, if illegally overheard, and their fruits are also subject to suppression.
the defendant against whom the evidence was held to be inadmissible was the victim of the search. However, in the cases before us, each petitioner demands retrial if any of the evidence used to convict him was the product of unauthorized surveillance, regardless of whose Fourth Amendment rights the surveillance violated. At the very least, it is urged that, if evidence is inadmissible against one defendant or conspirator because tainted by electronic surveillance illegal as to him, it is also inadmissible against his codefendant or coconspirator.
(1942), testimony induced by disclosing to witnesses their own telephonic communications intercepted by the Government contrary to 47 U.S.C. § 605 was held admissible against their coconspirators. The Court equated the rule under § 605 with the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment. [
(1963), came to like conclusions. There, two defendants were tried together; narcotics seized from a third party were held inadmissible against one defendant because they were the product of statements made by him at the time of his unlawful arrest. But the same narcotics were found to be admissible against the codefendant because
heroin invaded no right of privacy of person or premises which would entitle [him] to object to its use at his trial.
Cf. Goldstein v. United States,
Wong Sun v. United States, supra,
371 U. S. 492
"Ordinarily, then, it is entirely proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence that he allege, and if the allegation be disputed that he establish, that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy. [
This same principle was twice acknowledged last Term.
We adhere to these cases and to the general rule that Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.
318 U. S. 46
(1943). None of the special circumstances which prompted
(1958), and
(1953), are present here. There is no necessity to exclude evidence against one defendant in order to protect the rights of another. No rights of the victim of an illegal search are at stake when the evidence is offered against some other party. The victim can, and very probably will, object for himself when and if it becomes important for him to do so.
The necessity for that predicate was not eliminated by recognizing and acknowledging the deterrent aim of the rule.
(1960). Neither those cases nor any others hold that anything which deters illegal searches is thereby commanded by the Fourth Amendment. The deterrent values of preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated have been considered sufficient to justify the suppression of probative evidence even though the case against the defendant is weakened or destroyed. We adhere to that judgment. But we are not convinced that
We do not deprecate Fourth Amendment rights. The security of persons and property remains a fundamental value which law enforcement officers must respect. Nor should those who flout the rules escape unscathed. In this respect, we are mindful that there is now a comprehensive statute making unauthorized electronic surveillance a serious crime. [
] The general rule under the statute is that official eavesdropping and wiretapping are permitted only with probable cause and a warrant. Without experience showing the contrary, we should not assume that this new statute will be cavalierly disregarded or will not be enforced against transgressors.
Of course, Congress or state legislatures may extend the exclusionary rule and provide that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible against anyone for any purpose. [
] But, for constitutional purposes, we are not now
its use against him not because he had any interest in the seized items as "effects" protected by the Fourth Amendment, but because they were the fruits of an unauthorized search of his house, which is itself expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment. [
] Nothing seen or found on the premises may legally form the basis for an arrest or search warrant or for testimony at the homeowner's trial, since the prosecution would be using the fruits of a Fourth Amendment violation.
of an illegal entry, and are inadmissible in evidence.
Wong Sun v. United States, supra.
was decided, no right of conversational privacy had been recognized as such; the right vindicated in that case was the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's own home. In
the words spoken by Blackie Toy when the police illegally entered his house were not usable against him because they were the fruits of a physical invasion of his premises which violated the Fourth Amendment.
Because the Court has now decided that the Fourth Amendment protects a person's private conversations as well as his private premises,
(1967), the dissent would discard the concept that private conversations overheard through an illegal entry into a private place must be excluded as the fruits of a Fourth Amendment violation. Although officers without a valid warrant may not search a house for physical evidence or incriminating information, whether the owner is present or away, the dissent would permit them to enter that house without consent and without a warrant, install a listening device, and use any overheard third-party conversations against the owner in a criminal case, in spite of the obvious violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be secure in his own dwelling. Even if the owner is present on his premises during the surveillance, he would have no complaint unless his own conversations were offered or used against him. Information from a telephone tap or from the microphone in the kitchen or in the rooms of guests or children would be freely usable as long as the homeowner's own conversations are not monitored and used against him. Indeed, if the police, instead of installing a device, secreted themselves on the premises, they could neither testify about nor use against the owner anything they
saw or carried away, but would be free to use against him everything they overheard except his own conversations. And should police overhear third parties describing narcotics which they have discovered in the owner's desk drawer, the police could not then open the drawer and seize the narcotics, but they could secure a warrant on the basis of what they had heard and forthwith seize the narcotics pursuant to that warrant. [
invaded when the police enter and install a listening device in his house as they are when the entry is made to undertake a warrantless search for tangible property, and the prosecution as surely employs the fruits of an illegal search of the home when it offers overheard third-party conversations as it does when it introduces tangible evidence belonging not to the homeowner, but to others. Nor do we believe that
by holding that the Fourth Amendment protects persons and their private conversations, was intended to withdraw any of the protection which the Amendment extends to the home or to overrule the existing doctrine, recognized at least since
that conversations as well as property are excludable from the criminal trial when they are found to be the fruits of an illegal invasion of the home. It was noted in
The remaining aspect of these cases relates to the procedures to be followed by the District Court in resolving the ultimate issue which will be before it -- whether the evidence against any petitioner grew out of his illegally overheard conversations or conversations occurring on his premises. [
] The question as stated in
(1963), is
The Government concedes that it must disclose to petitioners any surveillance records which are relevant to the decision of this ultimate issue. And it recognizes that this disclosure must be made even though attended by potential danger to the reputation or safety of third parties or to the national security -- unless the United States would prefer dismissal of the case to disclosure of the information. However, the Government contends that it need not be put to this "disclose or dismiss" option in the instant cases, because none of the information obtained from its surveillance is "arguably relevant" to petitioners' convictions, in the sense that none of the overheard conversations arguably underlay any of the evidence offered in these cases. Although not now insisting that its own evaluation of relevance should be accepted automatically and without judicial scrutiny, the United States urges that the records of the specified conversations be first submitted to the trial judge for an
examination. Any record found arguably relevant by the judge would be turned over to the petitioner whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, and that petitioner would then have the opportunity to use the disclosed information in his attempt to show that the Government has used tainted evidence to convict him. Material not arguably relevant would not be disclosed to any petitioner. [
Although this may appear a modest proposal, especially since the standard for disclosure would be "arguable" relevance, we conclude that surveillance records as to which any petitioner has standing to object should be turned over to him without being screened
by the trial judge. Admittedly, there may be much learned from an electronic surveillance which ultimately contributes nothing to probative evidence. But winnowing this material from those items which might have made a substantial contribution to the case against a petitioner is a task which should not be entrusted wholly to the court in the first instance. It might be otherwise if the trial judge had only to place the transcript or other record of the surveillance alongside the record evidence and compare the two for textual or substantive similarities. Even that assignment would be difficult enough for the trial judge to perform unaided. But a good deal more is involved. An apparently innocent phrase, a chance remark, a reference to what appears to be a neutral person or event, the identity of a caller or the individual on the other end of a telephone, or even the manner of speaking or using words may have special significance to one who knows the more intimate facts of an accused's life. And yet that information may be wholly colorless and devoid of meaning to one less well acquainted with all relevant circumstances. Unavoidably, this is a matter of judgment, but, in our view, the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the
judgment of the trial court to identify those records which might have contributed to the Government's case. [
factual materials, and after consideration of the many and subtle interrelationships which may exist among the facts reflected by these records. As the need for adversary inquiry is increased by the complexity of the issues presented for adjudication, and by the consequent inadequacy of
procedures as a means for their accurate resolution, the displacement of well informed advocacy necessarily becomes less justifiable.
Adversary proceedings will not magically eliminate all error, but they will substantially reduce its incidence by guarding against the possibility that the trial judge, through lack of time or unfamiliarity with the information contained in and suggested by the materials, will be unable to provide the scrutiny which the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule demands. It may be that the prospect of disclosure will compel the Government to dismiss some prosecutions in deference to national security or third-party interests. But this is a choice the Government concededly faces with respect to material which it has obtained illegally and which it admits, or which a judge would find, is arguably relevant to the evidence offered against the defendant. [
assumed that much of this he will already know, and disclosure should therefore involve a minimum hazard to others. In addition, the trial court can and should, where appropriate, place a defendant and his counsel under enforceable orders against unwarranted disclosure of the materials which they may be entitled to inspect.
Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 16(e). We would not expect the district courts to permit the parties or counsel to take these orders lightly.
None of this means that any defendant will have an unlimited license to rummage in the files of the Department of Justice. Armed with the specified records of overheard conversations and with the right to cross-examine the appropriate officials in regard to the connection between those records and the case made against him, a defendant may need or be entitled to nothing else. Whether this is the case or not must be left to the informed discretion, good sense, and fairness of the trial judge.
-342 (1939). [
Accordingly, in No. 133, O.T. 1967, the motion of the United States is denied to the extent that it requests an initial
inspection of the fruits of any unlawful
MR. JUSTICE STEWART. I join MR. JUSTICE HARLAN's separate opinion, except insofar as it would authorize
cases. I would apply the same standards to all three cases now before us, agreeing to that extent with the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents, adhering to his dissent in
* Together with No. 11,
Ivanov v. United States,
and No.197,
Butenko v. United States,
on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, argued October 14, 1968.
In our order of June 17, 1968, restoring the Government's motion to the calendar for reargument,
"(1) Should the records of the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio's place of business be subjected to
inspection by the trial judge to determine the necessity of compelling the Government to make disclosure of such records to petitioners, and, if so, to what extent?"
inspection is authorized or ordered, by what standards (for example, relevance and considerations of injury to persons or to reputations) should the trial judge determine whether the records are to be turned over to petitioners?"
In each case, the grant of certiorari,
"(1) Should the records of such electronic surveillance be subjected to
inspection by the trial judge to determine the necessity of compelling the Government to make disclosure of such records to petitioner, and if so, to what extent?"
inspection is to be authorized or ordered, by what standards (for example, relevance, and considerations of national security or injury to persons or reputations) should the trial judge determine whether the records are to be turned over to the defendant?"
"No court has ever gone so far in applying the implied sanction for violation of the Fourth Amendment. While this court has never been called upon to decide the point, the federal courts in numerous cases, and with unanimity, have denied standing to one not the victim of an unconstitutional search and seizure to object to the introduction in evidence of that which was seized.
the same rule should apply to the introduction of evidence induced by the use or disclosure thereof to a witness other than the victim of the seizure. We think no broader sanction should be imposed upon the Government in respect of violations of the Communications Act."
. The Court noted that the principle had been applied "in at least fifty cases by the Circuit Courts of Appeals . . . , not to mention many decisions by District Courts."
The "person aggrieved" language is from Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 41(e).
thus makes clear that Rule 41 conforms to the general standard, and is no broader than the constitutional rule.
(1948), is not authority to the contrary. It is not at all clear that the
opinion would automatically extend standing to a codefendant. Two of the five Justices joining the majority opinion did not read the opinion to do so, and found the basis for the codefendant's standing to be the fact that he was a guest on the premises searched. "But even a guest may expect the shelter of the rooftree he is under against criminal intrusion."
335 U. S. 461
Cf. Jones v. United States,
(1960). Nor does
Congress has not done so. In its recent wiretapping and eavesdropping legislation, Congress has provided only that an "aggrieved person" may move to suppress the contents of a wire or oral communication intercepted in violation of the Act. Title III, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 221 (18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV)). The Act's legislative history indicates that "aggrieved person," the limiting phrase currently found in Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 41(e), should be construed in accordance with existent standing rules.
S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., at 91, 106.
If the police enter a house pursuant to a valid warrant authorizing the seizure of specified gambling paraphernalia, but discover illegal narcotics in the process of the search, the narcotics may be seized and introduced in evidence in the prosecution of the homeowner, whether the narcotics belong to him or to a third party.
E.g., Harris v. United States,
(1947). But if the officers have neither a warrant nor the consent of the householder, it is elementary Fourth Amendment law that the narcotics are suppressible on his motion. In both cases, however, the homeowner's interest in the narcotics and his standing to object to their seizure are the same, and insofar as the Fourth Amendment's protection of "effects" is concerned, the right of the officer to seize the contraband without a warrant and use it in evidence is identical. The reason that the narcotics may be seized and introduced in evidence in the first case, where there was a valid warrant, in spite of the householder's interest in the narcotics and his standing to object, but not in the second case, where there was no warrant, is not the simple reason suggested by MR. JUSTICE HARLAN that the householder has a property interest in the narcotics, and therefore has "standing" to object. Rather, it is because, in the first case, there was no illegal invasion of the premises, while in the second, the officer's entry and search violated the Fourth Amendment, the narcotics being the fruit of that illegality.
So also we do not distinguish between electronic surveillance which is carried out by means of a physical entry and surveillance which penetrates a private area without a technical trespass. This much, we think,
makes quite clear. In either case, officialdom invades an area in which the homeowner has the right to expect privacy for himself, his family, and his invitees, and the right to object to the use against him of the fruits of that invasion, not because the rights of others have been violated, but because his own were. Those who converse and are overheard when the owner is not present also have a valid objection unless the owner of the premises has consented to the surveillance.
Cf. Mancusi v. DeForte,
392 U. S. 367
-370 (1968). The Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy and does not protect persons engaged in crime from the risk that those with whom they associate or converse will cooperate with the Government.
In both the volume of the material to be examined and the complexity and difficulty of the judgments involved, cases involving electronic surveillance will probably differ markedly from those situations in the criminal law where
procedures have been found acceptable to some extent.
(1966) (disclosure of grand jury minutes subject to
deletion of "extraneous material");
(1959) (whether the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, requires disclosure of document to the defense);
(1957) (disclosure of informant's identity). In the
case, the Court noted that ordinarily, "[t]rial judges ought not be burdened with the task or the responsibility of examining sometimes voluminous grand jury testimony," and that it is not
The dissents, it should be noted, would require turnover of arguably relevant material, whatever its impact on national security might be. To this extent, there is agreement that the defendant's interest in excluding the fruits of illegally obtained evidence entitles him to the product of the surveillance. Given this basic proposition, the matter comes down to a judgment as to whether
inspection would characteristically be sufficiently reliable when national security interests are at stake. On this issue, the majority and the dissenters part company.
these cases as if each of the two major problems they raise can be solved in only one of two ways. The Court seems to assume that either the traditional standing doctrine is to be expanded or that the traditional doctrine is to be maintained. Again, it is assumed that either an
decision is to be made by the judge in every case or that there is to be an automatic turnover of all conversations in every case. I do not believe, however, that the range of choice open to us on either issue is restricted to the two alternatives the Court considers. On both issues, there is a third solution which would, in my view, more satisfactorily accommodate the competing interests at stake.
I am in substantial agreement with the reasons the Court has given for refusing to expand the traditional standing doctrine to permit a Fourth Amendment challenge to be raised by either a codefendant or a coconspirator. [
] But it does not follow from this that we
may apply the traditional standing rules without further analysis. The traditional rules, as the majority correctly understands them, would grant standing with regard to (1) conversations in which the accused himself participated and (2)
conversations occurring on the accused's "premises," regardless of whether he participated in the particular conversation in any way. As I hope to show, the traditional rationale for this second rule -- granting standing to the property owner -- does not fit a case involving the infringement of conversational privacy. Moreover, no other persuasive rationale can be developed in support of the property owner's right to make a Fourth Amendment claim as to conversations in which he did not himself participate. Consequently, I would hold that, in the circumstances before us, standing should be granted only to those who actually participated in the conversation that has been illegally overheard.
There is a very simple reason why the traditional law of standing permits the owner of the premises to exclude a tangible object illegally seized on his property, despite the fact that he does not own the particular object taken by the police. Even though he does not have title to the object, the owner of the premises is in possession of it -- and we have held that a property interest of even less substance is a sufficient predicate for standing under the Fourth Amendment.
] This simple rationale does not, however,
justify granting standing to the property owner with regard to third-party conversations. The absent property owner does not have a property interest of any sort in a conversation in which he did not participate. The words that were spoken are gone beyond recall. [
Consequently, in order to justify the traditional rule, one must argue, as does the majority, that the owner of the premises should be granted standing because the bugged third-party conversations are "fruits" of the police's infringement of the owner's property rights. The "fruits" theory, however, does not necessarily fit when the police overhear private conversations in violation of the Fourth Amendment. As
389 U. S. 352
-353 (1967), squarely holds, the right to the privacy of one's conversation does not
hinge on whether the Government has committed a technical trespass upon the premises on which the conversations took place.
(1928), is no longer the law. If in fact, there has been no trespass upon the premises, I do not understand how traditional theory permits the owner to complain if a conversation is overheard in which he did not participate. Certainly the owner cannot suppress records of such conversations on the ground that they are the "fruits" of an unconstitutional invasion of his property rights.
See Goldman v. United States,
316 U. S. 135
It is true, of course, that the "fruits" theory would require a different result if the police used a listening device which did physically trespass upon the accused's premises. But the fact that this theory depends completely on the presence or absence of a technical trespass only serves to show that the entire theoretical basis of standing law must be reconsidered in the area of conversational privacy. For we have not buried
so far as it dealt with the substance of Fourth Amendment rights, only to give it new life in the law of standing. Instead, we should reject traditional property concepts entirely, and reinterpret standing law in the light of the substantive principles developed in
Standing should be granted to every person who participates in a conversation he legitimately expects will remain private for it is such persons that Katz protects. [
] On the other hand, property owners should not be permitted to assert a Fourth Amendment claim in this area if we are to respect the principle, whose vitality the Court has now
once again reaffirmed, which establishes "the general rule that Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously asserted."
. For granting property owners standing does not permit them to vindicate intrusions upon their own privacy, but simply permits criminal defendants to intrude into the private lives of others.
but their privacy would be violated further if the conversation were also made available to me. [
In the field of conversational privacy, the Fourth Amendment protects persons, not places.
(1967). And a man can only be in one place at one time. If the privacy of his conversation is respected at that place, he may engage in all those activities for which that privacy is an essential prerequisite. His
is not at all disturbed by the fact that other people in other places cannot speak without the fear of being overheard. That fact may be profoundly disturbing to the man whose privacy remains intact. But it remains a fact about
people's privacy. To permit a criminal defendant to complain about such intrusions is to permit the vicarious assertion of Fourth Amendment rights -- a step which I decline to take in relation to property owners for much the same reasons as those which have impelled the Court to deny standing to coconspirators.
if the police overhear his wife talking at her office or in a public phone booth,
cf. Katz v. United States, supra,
although he can complain when the police overhear her talking at home. Yet surely the husband's interest in his wife's privacy is equally worthy of respect in all three cases. If standing is to be extended to protect a person's interest in his family's privacy, an individual should be permitted to make a constitutional claim whenever a family member's reasonable expectation of privacy has been infringed, regardless of the place where his privacy was invaded. Indeed, the Court's emphasis on property ownership could well mean that a husband, as owner of a particular property, is entitled to complain as to a violation of his wife's privacy, but that the wife could not complain as to the unlawful surveillance of her husband, since she did not have a sufficiently substantial interest in the property on which the intrusion occurred. In contrast, if a perfect stranger is overheard on one's property, standing is established. In sum, I simply cannot discern a coherent policy behind the Court's solicitude for property interests in this area.
The Court's response seems to be that the Fourth Amendment protects "houses" as well as "persons." But this is simply to treat private conversations as if they were pieces of tangible
cannot carry his possessions with him wherever he goes, the Fourth Amendment protects a person's "house" so that his personal possessions may be kept out of the Government's easy reach. In contrast, a man must necessarily carry his voice around with him, and cannot leave it at home even if he wishes. When a man is not at home, he cannot converse there. There is thus no need to protect a man's "house" in order to protect his right to engage in private conversation. Consequently, the Court has not increased the scope of an accused's personal privacy by holding that the police have unconstitutionally invaded his "house" by putting a "bug" there. Houses do not speak; only people do. The police have violated only the
of those persons whose conversations are overheard.
persons with less substantial property interests are also entitled to special standing privileges. Yet this question will be presented to the District Court on remand in the
] and it will doubtless be an issue in many of the other cases now on our docket which we will remand for reconsideration in the light of our decision today. While a definitive solution to this problem is obviously premature, the Court's failure to give the lower courts any guidance whatever on this point will result in widespread confusion as trial judges throughout the land attempt to divine the rationale behind the property rule established today. Confusion will be compounded by our own past decisions, which have decisively rejected the notion that the accused must necessarily have a possessory interest in the premises before he may assert a Fourth Amendment claim.
See United States v. Jeffers,
(1968). But it will not do simply to incorporate the standing law developed in those cases in an effort to solve the problem before us. For our past decisions involved situations in which the police search was directed against the individual seeking to invoke the Fourth Amendment. Here, however, the question is whether an individual may hear the conversations of third parties. [
] If, for example, it develops at the hearing that petitioner Alderisio simply had a bare right to
remain on the business premises that were bugged,
cf. Jones v. United States, supra,
it surely could not be argued that his privacy had been infringed even though he had not been personally involved in any of the conversations that had been overheard. The Court seems duty bound to make at least this much clear. [
There is, however, at least one class of cases in which the standard considerations do not apply. I refer to the situations exemplified by
in which the defendant is charged, under one statute or another,
Moreover, apart from the sense of fair play of most judges, additional safeguards could be devised which would assure that an
procedure would be used only when an unauthorized disclosure presents a substantial risk to the national security. As in the somewhat analogous situation in which the Government attempts to invoke a national security privilege in a
civil action in order to trigger an
proceeding, there should
-8 (1953). Indeed, I would go even further than did the Court in
and lay upon trial judges the affirmative duty of assuring themselves that the national security interests claimed to justify an
proceeding are real, and not merely colorable.
The Court's failure to consider the special characteristics of the
cases is particularly surprising in the light of the reasons it gives for creating an absolute rule in favor of an automatic turnover. For the majority properly recognizes that its preference for a full adversary hearing cannot be justified by an easy reference to an absolute principle condemning
judicial decisions in all situations. Indeed, this Court has expressly authorized the use of such procedures in closely related areas involving the vindication of Fourth Amendment rights.
See Roviaro v. United States,
386 U. S. 309
-313 (1967). If, as the Court rightly states, the propriety of an
screening procedure is a "matter of judgment,"
, depending on an informed consideration of all the competing factors, I do not understand why the trial judge should not be authorized to consider whether the accused simply cannot be trusted to keep the Government's records confidential. Nor do I understand why the Government must be confronted with the choice of dismissing the indictment or disclosing the information because the accused cannot be counted on to keep faith with the Court. [
] Moreover, it is not
difficult to imagine cases in which the danger of unauthorized disclosure of important information would clearly outweigh the risk that an error may be made by the trial judge in determining whether a particular conversation is arguably relevant to the pending prosecution. It may well be, for example, that the number of conversations at issue is very small. Yet, though the Court itself recognizes that "the need for adversary inquiry is increased by the complexity of the issues presented for adjudication,"
394 U. S. 184
, it nevertheless leaves no room for an informed decision by the trial judge that the risk of error on the facts of a given case is insubstantial. Since the number of espionage cases is small, there is no chance whatever that these decisions will be made in a hurried fashion or that they will not be subjected to the most searching scrutiny on appeal. Of course, if any of the conversations should be found arguably relevant, their disclosure should be required before the prosecution is permitted to continue.
In sum, I would require the Government to turn over to Alderman and Alderisio only the records of those conversations in which each defendant participated, and I would leave the way open for a preliminary
screening procedure in the
The Court suggest,
394 U. S. 177
, n. 10, that I am wrong in finding that the traditional grant of standing to the property owner may properly be grounded on the simple fact of the owner's dominion over all physical objects on his premises. The majority argues that, even though a particular object (say a packet of narcotics) is not described in a valid search warrant, it may nevertheless be seized if the police find the narcotics in their search for the other evidence of crime. It follows from this, says the Court, that the householder's possessory interest in the seized property is not a sufficient basis for standing. But this argument ignores the fact that an accused may have
to raise a Fourth Amendment claim and yet lose on the
In the case the Court hypothesizes, the householder has standing because he has lost possession of an object formerly under his control. However, he loses on the merits because the police seizure was reasonable under the circumstances.
394 U. S. 179
, n. 11. While the absent owner can read the document when he returns to his home, he cannot summon back the words that were spoken in his absence. In the one case, the owner is personally aggrieved by the police action; in the other case, he is not.
It seems clear that, under the
rationale, a person is personally aggrieved by electronic surveillance not only when he is actually speaking, but also when he is listening to the confidences of others.
394 U. S. 168
, n. 1, the Government denies that electronic surveillance took place on property owned by Alderisio. Rather, the premises were owned either by firms which employed Alderisio or by "business associates."
I would not, however, go so far as my Brother FORTAS, who would appear to require an
proceeding in any case in which the Government claims that a turnover would be prejudicial to the national security. I believe that this special procedure is only justified when the accused has been indicted for his espionage activities, indicating that he has probably passed records to a foreign power.
or if it took place on "his premises"; [
] and (3) that all illegally obtained surveillance records as to which a defendant has standing (including national security information) must be submitted to the defendant or his counsel, subject to appropriate protective orders, and their relevance to the defendant's trial must be determined in adversary proceedings. The defendant is entitled to suppression or exclusion from his trial of such illegally obtained information and its fruits.
I find it necessary to file this separate opinion because I believe (1) that a person concerning whom an investigation involving illegal electronic surveillance has been conducted, as well as the persons given "standing" in the majority opinion, has the right to suppression of the illegally obtained material and its fruits, and (2) that it is permissible for the trial judge, subject to suitable specifications, to order that information vital to the national security shall be examined only
to determine its relevance or materiality, although I agree that all other information that may be the subject of a motion to suppress must be shown to the defendant or his counsel so that its materiality can be determined in an adversary hearing.
The effect of the Court's decision, bluntly acknowledged, is to add another to the long list of cases in which the courts have tolerated governmental conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. The courts have done this by resort to the legalism of "standing."
See, e.g., Goldstein v. United States,
It is a fundamental principle of our constitutional scheme that government, like the individual, is bound by the law. We do not subscribe to the totalitarian principle that the Government is the law, or that it may disregard the law even in pursuit of the lawbreaker. As this Court said in
"Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. [
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" governmental interference with the fundamental facet of individual liberty: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Mr. Justice Jackson recognized the central importance of the Fourth Amendment in his dissenting opinion in
Surreptitious electronic surveillance -- the "uninvited ear," as my Brother WHITE calls it -- is a "search and seizure" within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment.
(1967). It is usually the product of calculated, official decision, rather than the error of an individual agent of the state. And because, by nature, it is hidden, unlawful electronic surveillance is even more offensive to a free society than the unlawful search and seizure of tangible material.
In recognition of the principle that lawlessness on the part of the Government must be stoutly condemned, this Court has ruled that, when such lawless conduct occurs, the Government may not profit from its fruits.
(1914), held that, in a federal prosecution, the Government may not use evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure. In
the exclusionary rule was applied to the
States. In that case, the Court expressly recognized that only a proscription of the use of unlawfully seized material could properly implement the constitutional prohibition. It acknowledged that other remedies were not effective sanctions.
367 U. S. 651
See also Weeks v. United States, supra,
338 U. S. 41
-47 (1949) (dissenting opinion);
44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905 (1955). As this Court said in
347 U. S. 64
-65 (1954),
"The Government cannot violate the Fourth Amendment . . . and use the fruits of such unlawful conduct to secure a conviction. . . . [T]hese methods are outlawed, and convictions obtained by means of them are invalidated, because they encourage the kind of society that is obnoxious to free men. [
But, for reasons which many commentators charge are related more to convenience and judicial prudence than to constitutional principles, courts of all States except California [
] and of the federal system, including this Court, have allowed in evidence material obtained by police agents in direct and acknowledged violation of the Fourth Amendment. They have allowed this evidence except in those cases where a defendant who moves for suppression of the material can show that his personal right of privacy was violated by the unlawful search or seizure. This restriction on persons who can suppress illegally acquired evidence has been attributed by some
commentators [
] to the fact that the constitutional right to suppress was at one time considered to stem in part from the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. [
] Only the person whose right has been violated can claim the protection of that privilege. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2196, 2270 (McNaughton rev. 1961). But if the exclusionary rule follows from the Fourth Amendment itself, there is no basis for confining its invocation to persons whose right of privacy has been violated by an illegal search. The Fourth Amendment, unlike the Fifth, is couched in terms of a guarantee that the government will not engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. It is a general prohibition, a fundamental part of the constitutional compact, the observance of which is essential to the welfare of all persons. [
] Accordingly, commentators have urged that the necessary implication of the Fourth Amendment is that any defendant against whom illegally acquired evidence is offered,
whether or not it was obtained in violation of his right to privacy, may have the evidence excluded. It is also contended that this is the only means to secure the observance of the Fourth Amendment. [
I find these arguments cogent and appealing. The Fourth Amendment is not merely a privilege accorded to him whose domain has been lawlessly invaded. It grants the individual a personal right not to privacy, but to insist that the state utilize only lawful means of proceeding against him. And it is an assurance to all that the Government will exercise its formidable powers to arrest and to investigate only subject to the rule of law.
See Brinegar v. United States, supra,
To allow anyone, regardless of "standing," to prevent the use against him of evidence that the Government has lawlessly obtained would, however, be contrary to a number of decisions stemming from
E.g., Wong Sun v. United States, supra; Parman v. United States,
130 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 399 F.2d 5.59 (1968). It is the mandate of
that something more than the generalized interest of any citizen in governmental
obedience to law may be required for suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence. But if the Court is not prepared to repudiate the holding, stated in
that something more must be shown to compel suppression than a claim of prejudice based only on "the use of evidence gathered as a consequence of a search or seizure directed at someone else," 362 U.S. at
, it should at least follow
faithfully and completely.
represented a substantial step towards full implementation of the Fourth Amendment. The case involved a charge of illegal possession of narcotics, and it held that mere lawful presence on the premises searched gave "standing" to challenge the legality of the search. [
] It rejected the view "generally" held by courts of appeals
in order to have the seized property suppressed.
It explicitly rejected the use of property concepts to determine whether the movant had the necessary "interest" or "standing" to obtain exclusion of the unlawfully seized evidence.
in a passage the majority quotes but the full scope of which it does not incorporate in its opinion:
"In order to qualify as a 'person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure,' one must have been a victim of a search or seizure,
one against whom the search was directed,
as distinguished from one who claims prejudice only through the use of evidence gathered as a consequence of a search or seizure directed at someone else. . . ."
. It is my position that this quotation, read in light of the Court's rejection of property concepts, requires that we include within the category of those who may object to the introduction of illegal evidence "one against whom the search was directed." Such a person is surely "the victim of an invasion of privacy," [
] and a "person aggrieved,"
even though it is not his property that was searched or seized. As I think the Court recognized in
unless we are to insist upon property concepts, it is enough to give him "standing" to object that the government agents conducted their unlawful search and seizure in order to obtain evidence to use against him. The Government violates his rights when it seeks to deprive him of his liberty by unlawfully seizing evidence in the course of an investigation of him and using it against him at trial.
See Rosencranz v. United States,
334 F.2d 738, 741 (C.A. 1st Cir.1964) (concurring opinion).
Because the Court believes that no distinction can be made with respect to the defendant's right to suppress relevant evidence on the basis of the sensitivity of the material, it has concluded that no distinction can be made as to the method of determining whether the material is relevant. I agree that an
inspection of the records of unlawful surveillance should not be the usual method of determining relevance. I agree with all that the Court says about the inadequacy of an inspection in which the defendant cannot participate and the burden that it places upon the trial judge. But in cases where the trial court explicitly determines, in written findings, sealed and available for examination by
I agree with the majority that the possibility of error in determining relevance is much greater if there is only
examination. But I also agree with my Brother HARLAN that disclosure of some of the material may pose a serious danger to the national interest. I therefore reach the conclusion that a differentiation may properly be made between the method of handling materials the disclosure of which would endanger the national security and other illegally obtained materials. Skepticism as to the court's ability to detect and turn over to the defendant all relevant material may be well founded, but
inspection does not so clearly threaten to deprive defendants of their constitutional rights that it justifies endangering the national security. Accordingly, I would
hold that, after certification by the Attorney General that specific portions of unlawfully obtained materials are sensitive, the trial judge may find that their disclosure to the defendant or his counsel would substantially injure national security interests, and he may determine
whether the materials are arguably relevant to the defendant's prosecution.
See also Elkins v. United States,
392 U. S. 13
316 U. S. 128
(1942) (dissenting opinion);
(1954) (DOUGLAS, J, dissenting); Comment, The
Case: State Wiretap Evidence and the Federal Exclusionary Rule, 57 Col.L.Rev. 1159, 1167-1168 (1957).
n. 2, at
See Irvine v. California, supra,
347 U. S. 150
See People v. Martin,
45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855 (1955).
Wong Sun v. United States:
A Study in Faith and Hope, 42 Neb.L.Rev. 483, 539, 540 (1963); Comment, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree -- A Plea for Relevant Criteria, 115 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1136, 1140-1141 (1967). Others have attributed the standing requirement simply to a hostility towards the exclusionary rule on the part of the courts.
Edwards, Standing to Suppress Unreasonably Seized Evidence, 47 Nw.U.L.Rev. 471 (1952).
(1961), was a 5-to-4 decision. My Brother BLACK concurred only on the basis that the Fifth Amendment's ban against self-incrimination, operating in conjunction with the Fourth Amendment, required the exclusionary rule.
The California Supreme Court has recognized that it is not inconsistent to hold that any person may object to the use against him of evidence obtained by an illegal search or seizure, while at the same time allowing only a person who has been made to incriminate himself to suppress his confession and its fruits.
Compare People v. Martin, supra,
with People v. Varnum,
66 Cal.2d 808, 427 P.2d 772 (1967).
Grant, Circumventing the Fourth Amendment, 14 So.Cal.L.Rev. 359, 368 (1941); Allen, The
Case: Search and Seizure, Federalism, and the Civil Liberties, 45 Ill.L.Rev. 1, 22 (1950); Kamisar, Illegal Searches or Seizures and Contemporaneous Incriminating Statements: A Dialogue on a Neglected Area of Criminal Procedure, 1961 U.Ill.L.F. 78, 105. Traynor,
at Large in the Fifty States, 1962 Duke L.J. 319, 335; Broeder,
n. 5, at 540; Pitler, "The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Revisited and Shepardized, 56 Calif.L.Rev. 579, 649-650, n. 352 (1968); Comment, Judicial Control of Illegal Search and Seizure, 58 Yale L.J. 144, 157 (1948); Note, Standing to Object to an Unlawful Search and Seizure, 1965 Wash.U.L.Q. 488; Comment, Standing to Object to an Unreasonable Search and Seizure, 34 v. Chi.L.Rev. 342 (1967).
n. 5, at 472; Weeks, Standing to Object in the Field of Search and Seizure, 6 Ariz.L.Rev. 65 (1964); Comment, 55 Mich.L.Rev. 567, 581 (1957).
I assume that the Court today intend to incorporate at least this direct holding of
82 Stat. 218 (18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(b) (1964 ed., Supp. IV)). Examination of such applications should facilitate the task of deciding at whom a particular investigation was directed.
See also Berger v. New York,