Case Name: IRVINE v. CALIFORNIA
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1954-02-08
Citations: 347 U.S. 128
Docket Number: No. 12
Parties: IRVINE v. CALIFORNIA.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 347
Pages: 128–156

Head Matter:
IRVINE v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 12.
Argued November 30, 1953.
Decided February 8, 1954.
Morris Lavine argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Attorney General of California, and Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With them on the brief were Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and William V. O’Connor, Chief Deputy Attorney General.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Jackson
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton join.
This case involves constitutional questions growing out of methods employed to convict petitioner on charges of horse-race bookmaking and related offenses against the antigambling laws of California. Petitioner exhausted all avenues to relief under state procedures and then sought review here of duly raised federal issues.
We granted certiorari on a petition which tendered four questions. However, petitioner's counsel has now presented two additional questions, one concerning the application of an immunity statute of California and another attacking certain instructions given to the jury by the trial court. Neither of these was mentioned in the petition. We disapprove the practice of smuggling additional questions into a case after we grant certiorari. The issues here are fixed by the petition unless we limit the grant, as frequently we do to avoid settled, frivolous or state law questions. We do not take up the questions numbered 3 and' 6 of petitioner's brief because they are improperly presented.
Upon his arrest, petitioner had on his person a federal wagering tax stamp bearing his name, home address and the date, November 5, 1951. Against objection, it and other documentary evidence from the office of the United States Collector of Internal Revenue was received to show petitioner's application for the wagering tax stamp and his return to the Collector under the federal law. These documents were made pursuant to the Federal Act imposing wagering taxes, 65 Stat. 529, 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 3285 et seq., held constitutional by this Court in United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22. The claim is made that it was error as a matter of federal law to admit this evidence and also that payment of the federal tax resulted in a federal license to conduct the wagering business. This statute does not make such records or stamps confidential or privileged but, on the contrary, expressly requires the name and place of business of each such taxpayer to be made public. 53 Stat. 395, 26 U. S. C. § 3275. Petitioner's contentions are without substance or merit in view of the express provision of the statute that payment of the tax does not exempt any person from penalty or punishment by state law and does not authorize commencement or continuance of such business. 53 Stat. 395, 26 U. S. C. § 3276; 65 Stat. 531, 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 3292.
But the questions raised by the officers' conduct while investigating this case are serious. The police strongly suspected petitioner of illegal bookmaking but were without proof of it. On December 1, 1951, while Irvine and his wife were absent from their home, an officer ar ranged to have a locksmith go there and make a door key. Two days later, again in the absence of occupants, officers and a technician made entry into the home by the use of this key and installed a concealed microphone in the hall. A hole was bored in the roof of the house and wires were strung to transmit to a neighboring garage whatever sounds the microphone might pick up. Officers were posted in the garage to listen. On December 8, police again made surreptitious entry and moved the microphone, this time hiding it in the bedroom. Twenty days later, they again entered and placed the microphone in a closet, where the device remained until its purpose of enabling the officers to overhear incriminating statements was accomplished.
We should note that this is not a conventional instance of "wire tapping." Here the apparatus of the officers was not in any way connected with the telephone facilities, there was no interference with the communications system, there was no interception of any message. All that was heard through the microphone was what an eavesdropper, hidden in the hall, the bedroom, or the closet, might have heard. We do not suppose it is illegal to testify to what another person is heard to say merely because he is saying it into a telephone. We cannot sustain the contention that the conduct or reception of the evidence violated the Federal Communications Act. 48 Stat. 1103, 47 U. S. C. § 605. Cf. Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338; Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129; Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U. S. 199.
At the trial, officers were allowed to testify to conversations heard through their listening installations. The snatches of conversation which the prosecution thought useful were received in evidence. They were in the lingo of the race track and need not be recited, but the jury might well have regarded them as incriminating. The testimony was received under objection, properly raising the question that it was constitutionally inadmissible since obtained by methods which violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Each of these repeated entries of petitioner's home without a search warrant or other process was a trespass, and probably a burglary, for which any unofficial person should be, and probably would be, severely punished. Science has perfected amplifying and recording devices to become frightening instruments of surveillance and invasion of privacy, whether by the policeman, the blackmailer, or the busybody. That officers of the law would break and enter a home, secrete such a device, even in a bedroom, and listen to the conversation of the occupants for over a month would be almost incredible if it were not admitted. Few police measures have come to our attention that more flagrantly, deliberately, and persistently violated the fundamental principle declared by the Fourth Amendment as a restriction on the Federal Government that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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." The decision in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27, for the first time established that "[t]he security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police" is embodied in the concept of due process found in the Fourteenth Amendment.
But Wolf, for reasons set forth therein, declined to make the subsidiary procedural and evidentiary doctrines developed by the federal courts limitations on the states. On the contrary, it declared, "We hold, therefore, 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 unreasonable search and seizure." 338 U. S. 25, 33. See Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117, 119, 122. That holding would seem to control here.
An effort is made, however, to bring this case under the sway of Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165. That case involved, among other things, an illegal search of the defendant's person. But it also presented an element totally lacking here — coercion (as the Court noted, p. 173), applied by a physical assault upon his person to compel submission to the use of a stomach pump. This was the feature which led to a result in Rochin contrary to that in Wolf. Although Rochin raised the search-and-seizure question, this Court studiously avoided it and never once mentioned the Wolf case. Obviously, it thought that illegal search and seizure alone did not call for reversal. However obnoxious are the facts in the case before us, they do not involve coercion, violence or brutality to the person, but rather a trespass to property, plus eavesdropping.
It is suggested, however, that although we affirmed the conviction in Wolf, we should reverse here because this invasion of privacy is more shocking, more offensive, than the one involved there. The opinions in Wolf were written entirely in the abstract and did not disclose the details of the constitutional violation. Actually, the search was offensive to the law in the same respect, if not the same degree, as here. A deputy sheriff and others went to a doctor's office without a warrant and seized his appointment book, searched through it to learn the names of all his patients, looked up and interrogated certain of them, and filed an information against the doctor on the information that the District Attorney had obtained from the books. The books also were introduced in evidence against the doctor at his trial.
We are urged to make inroads upon Wolf by holding that it applies only to searches and seizures which pro duce on our minds a mild shock, while if the shock is more serious, the states must exclude the evidence or we will reverse the conviction. We think that the Wolf decision should not be overruled, for the reasons so persuasively stated therein. We think, too, that a distinction of the kind urged would leave the rule so indefinite that no state court could know what it should rule in order to keep its processes on solid constitutional ground.
Even as to the substantive rule governing federal searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment, both the Court and individual Justices have wavered considerably. Compare Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145; Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699; United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160; Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129; On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747. Never until June of 1949 did this Court hold the basic search-and-seizure prohibition in any way applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. At that time, as we pointed out, thirty-one states were not following the federal rule excluding illegally obtained evidence, while sixteen were in agreement with it. Now that the Wolf doctrine is known to them, state courts may wish further to reconsider their evidentiary rules. But to upset state convictions even before the states have had adequate opportunity to adopt or reject the rule would be an unwarranted use of federal power. The chief burden of administering criminal justice rests upon state courts. To impose upon them the hazard of federal reversal for noncompliance with standards as to which this Court and its members have been so inconstant and inconsistent would not be justified. We adhere to Wolf as stating the law of search-and-seizure cases and decline to introduce vague and subjective distinctions.
Whether to exclude illegally obtained evidence in federal trials is left largely to our discretion, for admissibility of evidence is governed "by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience." Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., 26. As we have pointed out, reason has led state courts to differing conclusions, but about two-thirds of them to acceptance of the illegally obtained evidence. What actual experience teaches we really do not know. Our cases evidence the fact that the federal rule of exclusion and our reversal of conviction for its violation are not sanctions which put an end to illegal search and seizure by federal officers. The rule was announced in 1914 in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383. The extent to which the practice was curtailed, if at all, is doubtful. The lower federal courts, and even this Court, have repeatedly been constrained to enforce the rule after its violation. There is no reliable evidence known to us that inhabitants of those states which exclude the evidence suffer less from lawless searches and seizures than those of states that admit it. Even this Court has not seen fit to exclude illegally seized evidence in federal cases unless a federal officer perpretrated the wrong. Private detectives may use methods to obtain evidence not open to officers of the law. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465; see McGuire v. United States, 273 U. S. 95, 99; cf. Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487; Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74. And the lower federal courts, treating the Fourth Amendment right as personal to the one asserting it, have held that he who objects must claim some proprietary or possessory interest in that which was unlawfully searched or seized. E. g., Connolly v. Medalie, 58 F. 2d 629; Steeber v. United States, 198 E. 2d 615, 617. See Goldstein v. United States, 316 U. S. 114, 121; Wolf v. Colorado, supra, at 30-31. Cf. United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48.
It must be remembered that petitioner is not invoking the Constitution to prevent or punish a violation of his federal right recognized in Wolf or to recover reparations for the violation. He is invoking it only to set aside his own conviction of crime. That the rule of exclusion and reversal results in the escape of guilty persons is more capable of demonstration than that it deters invasions of right by the police. The case is made, so far as the police are concerned, when they announce that they have arrested their man. Rejection of the evidence does nothing to punish the wrong-doing official, while it may, and likely will, release the wrong-doing defendant. It deprives society of its remedy against one lawbreaker because he has been pursued by another. It protects one against whom incriminating evidence is discovered, but does nothing to protect innocent persons who are the victims of illegal but fruitless searches. The disciplinary or educa tional effect of the court's releasing the defendant for police misbehavior is so indirect as to be no more than a mild deterrent at best. Some discretion is still left to the states in criminal cases, for which they are largely responsible, and we think it is for them to determine which rule best serves them.
But admission of the evidence does not exonerate the officers and their aides if they have violated defendant's constitutional rights. It was pointed out in Wolf v. Colorado, supra, that other remedies are available for official lawlessness, although too often those remedies are of no practical avail. The difficulty with them is in part due to the failure of interested parties to inform of the offense. No matter what an illegal raid turns up, police are unlikely to inform on themselves or each other. If it turns up nothing incriminating, the innocent victim usually does not care to take steps which will air the fact that he has been under suspicion. And the prospect that the guilty may capitalize on the official wrongdoing in his defense, or to obtain reversal from a higher court, removes any motive he might have to inform.
It appears to the writer, in which view he is supported by The Chief Justice, that there is no lack of remedy if an unconstitutional wrong has been done in this instance without upsetting a justifiable conviction of this common gambler. If the officials have willfully deprived a citizen of the United States of a right or privilege secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment, that being the right to be secure in his home against unreasonable searches, as defined in Wolf v. Colorado, supra, their conduct may constitute a federal crime under 62 Stat. 696, 18 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 242. This section provides that whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States shall be fined or imprisoned. See Williams v. United States, 341 U. S. 97; Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91. It does not appear that the statute of limitations yet bars prosecutions. 45 Stat. 51, 18 U. S. C. § 582. We believe the Clerk of this Court should be directed to forward a copy of the record in this ease, together with a copy of this opinion, for attention of the Attorney General of the United States. However, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton do not join in this paragraph.
Judgment affirmed.
Keeping premises with paraphernalia for the purpose of recording and registering bets on horse racing, receiving money and the equivalent thereof which had been or was to be wagered on horse races, and recording and registering bets on horse races.
Deering's Cal. Penal Code, 1949, § 337a (1), (2), (3), and (4).
345 U. S. 903.
Petitioner's question number 2, which challenges the State's use of "compelled evidence" obtained under the federal wagering statute, is answered in United States v. Kahriger, supra, at 32.
E. g., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385; Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298; Amos v. United States, 255 U. S. 313; Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20; Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28; Gambino v. United States, 275 U. S. 310; Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344; United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452; Taylor v. United States, 286 U. S. 1; Grau v. United States, 287 U. S. 124; Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41; United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581; Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10; Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699; McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451; Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48. The Court has also cited the doctrine with approval in many related cases. E. g., Perlman v. United States, 247 U. S. 7; Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132; McGuire v. United States, 273 U. S. 95; Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319; Goldstein v. United States, 316 U. S. 114; McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332; Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487; Davis v. United States, 328 U. S. 582; Zap v. United States, 328 U. S. 624; Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145; United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co,, 336 U. S. 793; United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56; On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747. See Appendix to dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Harris v. United States, supra, at 175.