Document: 401 U.S. 646 91 S.Ct. 1148 28 L.Ed.2d 388 Clarence WILLIAMS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Joseph ELKANICH, Petitioner, v. UNITED Nos. 81, 82. Argued Oct. 21, 1970. Decided April 5, 1971. Syllabus In No. here on direct review, petitioner was convicted of selling narcotics after a trial in which heroin seized search incident to his arrest introduced into evidence. The Court Appeals affirmed, holding that the intervening decision Chimel California, 395 752, 89 2034, 23 685, narrowing scope permissible searches arrest, not be retroactively applied antedating date it decided, and valid under pre-Chimel law. Evidence at 82 included marked bills during apartment following charges. were upheld trial, appeal, District proceedings U.S.C. § 2255. Held: judgments are affirmed. Pp. 649—666, 699—700. 9 Cir., 418 F.2d 159, 82, Mr. Justice WHITE, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, STEWART, BLACKMUN, concluded Chimel, supra, is retroactive should conducted prior decision. 649—659. 1 (a) Where major purpose new constitutional standard overcome an aspect criminal substantially impairs truth-finding function thus raises serious questions about accuracy guilty verdicts past trials, rule does require retrospective application. P. 653. 2 (b) Constitution measured standards, Desist United States, 394 244, 1030, 22 248. Petitioners' rights then-existing law violated either before or claimed evidence constitutionally insufficient prove guilt, exclusionary will sufficiently implemented applying occurring case. 656. 3 (c) There no difference between applicability convictions appeal those involving collateral proceedings, federal state prisoners. 656—659. 4 BRENNAN question whether every person through obtained contrary guilty, but rather compels conclusion invasion petitioners' privacy, justifiable mistaken reliance upon continuing validity requires exclusion fruits from factfinding process. He agreed with plurality opinion not, retroactively. 660—665. 5 BLACK concurred result ground wrongly decided. 660. 6 HARLAN judgment affirmed as case subjected requirements since petitioner's conviction became final then-prevailing validated search, methods fundamentally unfair. 7 MARSHALL mode analysis appropriate cases retroctively such cases. 665—666. 8 Henry Florence, Phoenix, Ariz., for Williams. Charles A. Miller, Washington, D.C., Elkanich. 10 James van R. Springer, respondent. 11 WHITE announced BLACKMUN join. 12 principal these 685 (1969), review Williams' proceeding initiated 13 * agents March 31, 1967, secured warrant Williams charges violation 21 174. arrested home night. A quantity discovered course arrest. court sustained sentenced 10-year prison term. Ninth Circuit. 159 (CA9 1969). That held: (1) our did govern carried out June 23, 1969, decision; (2) evidenced States Rabinowitz, 339 56, 70 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950), Harris 331 145, 67 1098, 1399 (1947). also rejected claim invalid because mere pretext unwarranted search. We granted certiorari. 397 986, 90 1120, 25 396 (1970). 14 Elkanich three counts concurrent sentences. given intermediary use purchasing narcotics. there. challenged invalid. Both arest appeal. 327 417 1964), well subsequent brought petition certiorari consider effect, if any, decision, intervened when denial 2255 application pending Appeals. 1057, 760, 24 757 affirm both II 15 Aside insubstantial invalid,1 neither this suggests unconstitutionally obtained; procedures employed any then-governing norms. Concededly, petitioners properly admitted Fourth Amendment construed 1947 Rabinowitz 1950. however, disapproved Chimel. considerably narrowed argue cases, judged unreasonable inadmissible trial.2 However, we reaffirm recent decisions like situations: applicable 248 (1969). 16 Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731, 601 (1965), declined give complete effect Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961). Relying firmly idea all interpretations must considered always have been constructions ignored. Since time, held there inflexible requiring circumstances absolute retroactivity prospectivity construing broad language Bill Rights.3 Nor accepted dividing line suggested distinction arising attack.4 Rather proceeded 'weigh merits demerits each looking history question, its operation further retard operation.' Linkletter, 629, 1738.5 17 doctrine so has effect.6 Neither good-faith authorities practice, nor severe impact administration justice sufficed prospective circumstances. 18 It quite different where proscribing certain particular minimize avoid arbitrary unreliable results serve other ends. situations guilt defendants trials. Ohio cast doubt relevance probity illegally excluded trials deter official invasions individual privacy protected Amendment. Katz 389 347, 88 507, 19 576 (1967), overruled Olmstead 277 438, 48 564, 72 944 (1928), Goldman 316 129, 62 993, 86 1322 (1942), gave expanded protection against nonconsensual eavesdropping. followed nontrespassory electronic surveillance public telephone booth subject rule, had fashioned exact compliance than protect untrustworthy Thus Court, came Katz, dealing emerging casts soundness some State Federal Governments disentitled pursuing goals their conformed then-applicable government involved concededly defendant custody substantial unsatisfied interests achieving respect whatever deterrent rehabilitative underlay system. Each defendant, habeas corpus route, benefit later decided demanded trial. But ordering would only expense effort inevitable risk unavailable witnesses faulty memories; might they once foreclosed obtaining known using suspect. Moreover, essential effect; indeed marginally furthered extending relief Desist, others comparable situations. circumstances, found setting aside conviction.7 III 20 Considering represents sound approach claims confident bound apply standards duly law; No made them guilt. And receive sufficient implementation admissibility who mistake ignorance precepts IV what said opinion, clear find proceedings. terms prisoners insofar concerned. accept HARLAN'S truism, stated dissent, task adjudicate issues present, including necessary dispose controversy. Hence, resolve raised leaves how resolved. Assuming colorable entitled governing standard, cases? This unavoidable threshold issue—as describes discussing us 'choice problem.' Post, 1175. opinions filed offer various answers question. judge prevailing searched. Surely resolution more legislative, less judicial, HARLAN. feels compelled overruling deems himself free, vague inscrutable exceptions,8 refuse benefits collaterally attack convictions. latter seems rest chiefly own assessment interest finality litigation. former explained except repeated assertions different.9 authority upset will. Does compel set he conformity Court? As said, think not—no teachings reviewing Elkanich's relief. Other considering inherent process judicial directly address purport explain mechanism mechanically affording unmoved argument Mapp, Duncan Louisiana, 391 1444, 491 (1968), relief, chance first unfair deny whose thoroughly deserving. follow previous vulnerable occurred today aside. tail wagging dog. fairly met adequately disposed Stovall Denno, 293, 301, 87 1972, 1199 (1967). see reason repeat reconsider urged involves confusing problems identifying 'new' change arguably proper course. reach disapprove now ahve deemed reasonable purposes. may old one; problem courts. proved unmanageable courts judges suddenly lost competence deal present.10 26 27 Affirmed. While joining STEWART alternative issue presented one cognizable See Nelson, 286, 307, 1082, 1094, 281 (dissenting opinion); Kaufman 217, 242, 1068, 227 Chambers Maroney, 399 42, 54, 1975, 1983, 419 (concurring opinion). 29 BLACK, while adhering 640, 1743, concurs believes 30 DOUGLAS took part consideration 31 BRENNAN, concurring result. 32 principles established long cases1 determinet warrantless sought justified lawful overrule (1947), (1950). founded 'little subjective view regarding acceptability sorts police conduct, considerations relevant interests.' U.S., 764—765, S.Ct., 2041; 83, 443 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). By time rejected; until day, survived proposition somehow justify premises made, beyond immediate arrested.2 33 Accordingly, fruit unlawful holds used previously applied. See, e.g., Von Cleef New Jersey, 814, 2051, 728 I agree. 297, 1970, 34 '(t)he criteria guiding (this) implicate served extent enforcement standards.' 35 All factors imply 36 Like Fifth Amendment's compulsory self-incrimination, requirement stakes boundaries tread forcing information citizens. When coercion, impermissible Amendment, actually produced involuntary statement, invariably unconstitutional coercion prosecute crime. E.g., Rochin 342 165, 173, 205, 210, 96 183 (1952) J.); Ashcraft Tennessee, 322 143, 64 921, 1192 (1944); Boyd 116 616, 630—635, 638, 524, 532—534, 536, 746 (1886).3 Exclusion statements impermissibly coerced merely device improper conduct future. testimony parcel privilege self-incrimination. Likewise, seizure evidence, required hope deterring future, order vindicate right guaranteed supra; Weeks 232 383, 390—394, 398, 341, 343—345, 346, 58 652 (1914); 656, 660, 1692, 1694, improve reliability 249—250, 1033—1034, cited. factor 297—299, 1970—1971. 37 law-enforcement officials points same direction. recognized itself, jurisprudence often tortuous path. 755—762, 2035—2039. So visibly overruled, cannot surprised policemen guidance scrutinized doctrinal underpinning signs erosion. reliance, appears, considerable. Government represents, do seriously dispute, very number many these, could aware required. well, therefore, implies 38 Finally, evaluate probable justice. Persons engaged legitimately punish. propriety government's punishing conduct. assumed retrials. Yet likewise initial determination legitimate already noted, led requirement, although easily satisfied, understandably understood. consequence impose burden systems, serving redress knowing violations class persons punishing. 39 say, denied probably guilty. '(T)here litigation margin error, representing error factfinding.' Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525, 78 1332, 1342, 1460 (1958). serves limit, eliminate, fact innocent. re Winship, 358, 370—372, 1075—1076, 368 (1970) present asserted innocence pleading going trial; support finding sit questions. denying determine crime convicted. face legitimacy sincerity innocence, expressly all. is, instead, California conclude agree 1969. 40 MARSHALL, dissenting part. 41 After studying afresh pattern Court's yet rendered. Sound jurisprudential reasoning, articulated separate covering 675, 1171, 410, my still full supervening decisions. am persuaded willingness tolerate costs anomalies current incompatible duty principaled final. 42 disagree somewhat modes attack. believe best employ three-part undertakes deciding foreshadowed 1081, review. method commends point passed, careful way adjudicating 'procedural' litigants purposes decisional concerns effective enforcement. particular, decisively basic truth-determining then application, procedure itself stand concrete embodiment 'the concept ordered liberty.' Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 325, 149, 151, 288 (1937). 43 light above, concur disposition For posture appropriate, 44 facts, reverse below, Chimel's correctly make otherwise 160—161 certiorari, argued proof knowledge control over incidental home, failed constructive possession. briefed parties, decline disturb rejecting it. F.2d, 162—163. Petitioner pursuant living room residence shortly midnight. Eight officers involved, entire house searched period hour 45 minutes. container closet shelf bedrooms. Williams, n. 1, 161. complies without apartment. arresting cause asserts Three apartment, and, door opened wife response knock, entered immediately petitioner. handcuffing Elkanich, agent charge called assistance. arrived within minutes, four-room hour. supervising asked large sums cash, guns, 'or anything kind' indicated money broom closet. $500 above molding top closet, returned room, wife, $200 them. Another second roll totaling $1,000. Two items room. Of total nearly $2,000 seized, $1,550 consisted undercover purchase Rios, whom alleged supplying. argues exigent warrant. presence left two choices: postpone searching secured, entail sort wife's activity disappear; immediately, did. Because unnecessary pass contention. Many discussed majority These general decisions, generated amount commentary. generally Bender, Retroactive Effect Overruling Constitutional Decision: 110 U.Pa.L.Rev. 650 (1962); Currier, Time Change Judge-Made Law; Prospective Overruling, 51 Va.L.Rev. 201 (1965); Levy, Realist Jurisprudence 109 (1960); Meador, Habeas Corpus 'Retroactivity' Illusion, 50 1115 (1964); Mishkin, Supreme 1964 Term—Foreword: High Great Writ, Due Process Law, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 56 Schaefer, Control 'Sunbursts': Techniques N.Y.U.L.Rev. 631 (1967); Schwartz, Retroactivity, Reliability, Process: Reply Professor U.Chi.L.Rev. 719 (1966); Spruill, Decision, N.C.L.Rev. 199 (1940); Note, Retroactivity Criminal Procedure Decisions, 55 Iowa L.Rev. 1309 (1970); Comment, Shott, Problem Escobedo, Mich.L.Rev. 832 Application Courts, 71 Yale L.J. 907 (1962). Cf. Kitch, Code Procedure: 1968—1969 Edition, 1969 Sup.Ct.Rev. 155, 200. 410 (HARLAN, Compare (1966). attack, Johnson 384 719, 732, 1772, 1780, 882 (1966), stated: 'Our holdings Tehan (Tehan ex rel. 382 406, 459, 453) necessarily limited become Griffin (Griffin 380 609, 1229, 106) Decisions discussion announced.' sweep field procedure, mandated come summarized threefold directed discovering: '(a) 249, 1033, Arsenault Com. Massachusetts, 393 35, (1968) (giving counsel provided White Maryland, 373 59, 83 1050, 193 (1963)); McConnell Rhay, 2, 32, Mempa 128, 254, 336 (1967)); Berger 314, 540, 508 (1969) Barber Page, 390 1318, 255 (1968)); Roberts Russell, 392 1921, 1100 Bruton 123, 1620, 476 Jackson 378 368, 84 1774, 908 Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 792, 799 (1963); Douglas 353, 811 Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 891 (1956). alone. reached similar nonretroactive ramifications connection trustworthy designed enforce 414—415, 464, 453 730, 1779, 14, 1033—1034; cf. Mackey 667, 674—675, 1160, 1164—1165, 404. So, too, jury Sixth 'generally tends prevent arbitrariness repression,' DeStefano Woods, 631, 633, 2093, 2095, 1308 Wade, 218, 1926, 1149 Gilbert 263, 1951, 1178 carry implications identification testimony. obligating recognize virtue Fourteenth Amendments, Wade prospectively countervailing entail. Stovall, frankly acknowledged condemned practice infects integrity 'question probabilities." 298, unable 'condemned practice' presents likelihood factually incorrect, accorded condemning practice. DeStefano, 633 634, 2095 (quoting Duncan): "We assert, trial—or trial—held alone never treated jury." Our Brother criticizes stating finds 'inherently intractable purported rules principally values.' 1181. Earlier, 'those ought defined, 'truth-determining' test, (v. (1937)) test.' operating confines seeks determine, inter alia, newly proscribed surely proceed definite bearings 'test' define 'implicit 8, infra. treatment case, post, 1183—1184, Mackey, 1184. 1180—1181. Let assume X Y accomplices murder tried separately several reasons, reversal retrial consensual delay, X's proceeds slowly Y's quickly Assume State's highest court, violates Constitution. seeking cases—X (Or, wholly offenses districts X, crowded jurisdiction having appellate busy system, Y, arose congested courts, most likely attack.) Under approach, automatically receives rule—because decide accordance exists arrives consideration. Although remain law, depending correct come, shock Brother's conscience. today, consistent, be. perceptive jurist remarked: '(W)hen changing depend stage made. Too irrelevant common cold, bear rate progress system.' 3, 645. 'greatly ameliorated,' 1181, whenever considers necessity prisoner's grounded (was) final,' 1180. settled obtain approval seizures, see, Davis Mississippi, 721, 728, 1394, 1398, 676 (1969); 356—357, 514, 36, Preston 376 364, 881, 883, 777 McDonald 335 451, 455—456, 69 191, 193, 93 153 (1948) Agnello 269 20, 33, 46 4, 6, 145 (1925), few narrow well-delineated exceptions urgent necessity. Terry 16—27, 1868, 1877—1883, 889 (1968); 19, 514 cited; And, events, 'strictly tied by' rendered initiation permissible.' 1878, quoting Warden Hayden, 387 294, 310, 1642, 1651, 782 (1967) Long course, themselves limit. Kremen 353 77 828, 876 (1957); Stanley Georgia, 557, 569—572, 1243, 1250—1251, 542 (Stewart, result). concerned immunity prosecution maters revealed pertinent here. Piccirillo York, 400 548, 561—573, 520, 527—533, 596 (1971) (Brennan,

Category: 0