Document: 385 U.S. 206 87 S.Ct. 424 17 L.Ed.2d 312 Duke Lee LEWIS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 36. Argued Oct. 17, 1966. Decided Dec. 12, Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1967. See 386 939, 951. S. Myron Klarfeld, Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Ralph Spritzer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question resolution here is whether Fourth Amendment was violated when a federal narcotics agent, by misrepresenting his identity and stating willingness to purchase narcotics, invited into petitioner's home where an unlawful transaction consummated were thereafter introduced at criminal trial over objection. We hold that under facts this case it not. Those are not disputed may be briefly stated as follows: 2 On December 3, 1964, Edward Cass, undercover telephoned inquire about possibility purchasing marihuana. who previously had met or dealt with petitioner, falsely identified himself one 'Jimmy Pollack (sic)' mutual friend told him petitioner might able supply In response, said, 'Yes. I believe, Jimmy, can take care you,' then directed Cass where, indicated, sale marihuana would occur. drove home, knocked on door, 'Jim,' admitted. After discussing regular future dealings discounted price, led package located front porch home. gave $50, took package, left premises. contained five bags marihuana.1 similar place, beginning phone conversation in which Pollack' ending visit second occurred. Once again, paid but time he received return containing six marihuana.2 3 Petitioner arrested April 27, 1965, charged two-count indictment violations laws relating transfers 26 U.S.C. § 4742(a). A pretrial motion suppress evidence conversations between agent denied, they trial. District Court, sitting without jury, convicted both counts imposed concurrent five-year penitentiary sentences. Court Appeals First Circuit affirmed, 352 F.2d 799, we granted certiorari, 382 1024, 86 646, 15 538. 4 does argue entrapped, could case;3 nor contend search made anything other than purchased taken away. His only contentions that, absence warrant, any official intrusion upon privacy constitutes violation fact suspect cannot held waiver invitation induced fraud deception. 5 Both Government recognize necessity some police activity concede particular circumstances each govern admissibility obtained stratagem deception.4 Indeed, has long been acknowledged decisions see Grimm v. United States, 156 604, 610, 470, 472, 39 L.Ed. 550 (1895), Andrews 162 420, 423, 16 798, 40 1023 (1896),5 detection many types crime, entitled use decoys conceal its agents. various protections Bill Rights, course, provide checks such deception protection individual. See, e.g., Massiah 377 201, 84 1199, 12 246 (1964); Trupiano 334 699, 68 1229, 92 1663 (1948). 6 argues overstepped constitutional bounds places principal reliance Gouled 255 298, 41 261, 65 647 (1921). But short statement will demonstrate how misplaced is. There, business acquaintance acting orders officers, entry office representing intended pay social visit. absence, however, intruder secretly ransacked seized certain private papers incriminating nature. This no difficulty concluding secret general ransacking, notwithstanding initial occasioned fraudulently rather force stealth. 7 instant case, hand, specific purpose executing felonious narcotics. Petitioner's concern willing purchaser agreed price. order convince patronage desired, if became customer there, receive extra bag additional cost; did hand same place precisely manner. During neither visits see, hear, contemplated, intended, necessary part illegal business. Were deceptions constitutionally prohibited, come near rule agents manner virtually unconstitutional per se. Such would, example, severely hamper ferreting out those organized activities characterized covert victims either do protest.6 prime example provided traffic. 8 entered compel different conclusion. Without question, accorded full range protections. Amos 313, 266, 654 (1921); Harris 331 145, 151, n. 15, 67 1098, 1102, 91 1399 (1947). when, here, converted commercial center outsiders purposes transacting business, greater sanctity carried store, garage, car, street. government person, accept enter premises very contemplated occupant. Of mean whenever locus authorized conduct materials; citation supra, sufficient dispose contention. 9 Finally, also relies Rios 364 253, 80 1431, 1688 (1960); Jones 362 257, 725, 697 McDonald 335 451, 69 191, 93 153 (1948); Johnson 333 10, 367, 436 cases all exclusion forcibly against suspects' desires authorization conferred warrants. reading them readily inapposite case; and, area, must judged own facts. Nor Silverman 365 505, 81 679, 734 (1961) point; proscribed eavesdroppers, unknown unwanted intruders furtively listened occurring house. involves problem; well summarized conclusion brief 10 'In short, exercise governmental power intrude protected premises; visitor willingly admitted suspect. It concerns design observe hear what happening home; chose location place. presents invasion dwelling; statements repeated things packets voluntarily transferred him. pretense resulted breach privacy; merely encouraged say anxious anyone interested marihuana.' 11 Further elaboration necessary. judgment affirmed. Affirmed. 13 DOUGLAS dissented. 14 BRENNAN, whom FORTAS joins, concurring. While concur Court's judgment, vote affirm solely reasoning ultimately relies, namely apartment area related transactions present case. protects 'the man's privacies life.' Boyd 116 616, 630, 524, 532, 29 746. However, occupant break seal waive right Plainly extent opens invites trade When turns seller cannot, then, complain invaded so more buy wares. Thus corner grocery living quarters rear respect set aside groceries, although shoppers privy retain immunity. Cf. Wong Sun 371 471, 83 407, 441. opened narcotics; nothing away except purchaser. There therefore 'sanctity' 'privacies trade, average 'bag' contains approximately grams quantity measuring 31.16 grams. 40.34 Compare Sherman 356 369, 78 819, 848 (1958), Sorrells 287 435, 53 210, 77 413 (1932). generally Mikell, Doctrine Entrapment Federal Courts, 90 U.Pa.L.Rev. 245 (1942). oral argument before counsel conceded information course investigation, together subject matter first telephone probable cause believing offense committed therefore, have supported issuance warrant. According counsel, agent's misrepresentations vitiated magistrate's determination cause. Counsel further suggested latter's conducted incidental arrest, problems presented. Former Hughes commented follows combating activity: 'Artifice employed catch engaged enterprises. * appropriate object permitted activity, frequently essential enforcement law, reveal design; expose illicit traffic, prohibited publication, fraudulent mails, conspiracy, offenses, thus disclose would-be violators law.' 441—442, 212, 'Particularly, vice, liquor laws, impossible obtain prosecution save decoys. rarely complaining witnesses. participants crime enjoy themselves. Misrepresentation officer concerning practical necessity. Therefore, law attempt distinguish deceits persuasions permissible not.' Model Penal Code 2.10, comment, p. (Tent. Draft 9, 1959). Donnelly, Judicial Control Informants, Spies, Stool Pigeons Agent Provocateurs, 60 Yale L.J. 1091, 1094 (1951); Note, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 1333, 1338—1339 (1960).

Category: 0