Document: 394 U.S. 217 89 S.Ct. 1068 22 L.Ed.2d 227 Harold KAUFMAN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 53. Argued Nov. 19, 1968. Decided March 24, 1969. Bruce R. Jacob, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner. John S. Martin, Jr., Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question here is whether claim a federal prisoner that he was convicted on evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search and seizure cognizable post-conviction proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 2 Petitioner tried District Court Eastern Missouri charges armed robbery federally insured savings loan association. At trial, petitioner's only defense insanity. Appeals Eighth Circuit, direct appeal, affirmed conviction. Kaufman v. United States, 350 F.2d 408 (1965). 3 then filed this 2255 included finding sanity based upon improper admission unlawfully seized evidence.2 After evidentiary hearing, Judge, who had also presided at denied relief with written opinion. As respects unlawful seizure, states that: 'The record does not substantiate claim. In any event, matter assigned as error Kaufman's appeal from conviction available ground collateral attack instant motion.' 268 F.Supp. 484, 487 (1967). Petitioner's applications to Circuit leave forma pauperis were denied. 4 We treat actions grounded view consistently followed by claims 'are proper matters be presented motion vacate sentence but can properly conviction.'3 Other courts appeals have indicated contrary view.4 light importance issue administration we granted certiorari. 390 1002, 88 1250, 20 102 (1968). reverse. 5 authority writ habeas corpus incorporated very first grant court jurisdiction made Judiciary Act 1789, c. 20, 14, Stat. 81, limiting provision 'writs shall no case extend prisoners goal, unless where they are custody, or colour States * *.' Common-law principles initially determined scope writ. Ex parte Bollman, 8 75, Cranch 93—94, L.Ed. 554 (1807). 1867, however, extended state prisoners, its expanded authorize relief, both 'all cases person may restrained his her liberty violation constitution, treaty law February 5, 28, 1, 14 385. 6 Section revised procedure which seek such did respect cut back section 1948 revision Judicial Code 'at instance Conference (of States) meet practical difficulties arisen administering courts. Nowhere history do find purpose impinge prisoners' rights their convictions. On contrary, sole minimize encountered hearings affording same another more convenient forum,' Hayman, 342 205, 219, 72 263, 272, 96 232 (1952) (italics supplied);5 'the legislation intended simply provide sentencing remedy exactly commensurate previously been district confined.' Hill 368 424, 427, 82 468, 471, 7 417 (1962). Thus, refer our decisions respecting availability deciding case. noted Fay Noia, 372 391, 409, 83 822, 832 (1963) '(t) course makes plain restraints fundamental law, Constitution, challenged even though imposed pursuant competent jurisdiction.'6 given recognition constitutional proceedings. See, e.g., supra; Sanders 373 1068, 10 148 (1963); Jordan 352 904, 77 151, 114 (1956). cogn zance search-and-seizure generally supplied reasons supporting apparent departure decisions. Rather, these bald statement, variously expressed, cannot used lieu appeal.7 It true Sunal Large, 332 174, 179, 67 1588, 1591, 91 1982 (1947), held designed review errors committed trial court—the existence support conviction, irregularities grand jury procedure, statutory time prepare other cross jurisdictional line.' But there recognized asserted limited rule. U.S., 182, 1592; see supra, 428, 471. Later, Townsend Sain, 293, 311—312, 745, 756, 9 770 (1963), pointed out vital distinction between appellate functions concluded solely should sought alleging deprivations: whole writ—its unique development—refutes construction courts' powers would assimilate task review. function different. test way original civil proceeding, independent normal channels criminal judgments, gravest allegations. language Congress, writ, Court, all make clear power inquiry plenary. Therefore, applicant alleges facts which, if proved, entitled him application has receive try anew.' Government suggests rationale denying illegal claims. denial Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches seizures, Government's argument runs, different nature denials subject collaterial prisoners. For unlike effective counsel privilege self-incrimination, examples, impugn integrity fact-finding process challenge inherently unreliable; rather, exclusion illegally prophylactic device deter violations enforcement officers. This deterrent function, argues, adequately served opportunities afforded defendant enforce exclusionary rule before so relatively minimal additional deterrence seem justify, except special circumstances, release guilty persons raise appeal. sum, sponsors adoption announced majority Columbia Thornton 125 ,U.S.App.D.C. 114, 116, 824 (1966), absence showing 'special circumstances' admitted fruit concedes brief already rejected approach rejection premised large part remedies necessary inure proceedings stake. Our doubt extends unconstitutionally them trial. Mancusi DeForte, 392 364, 2120, 1154 (1968); Carafas LaVallee, 391 234, 1556, Warden, Md. Penitentiary Hayden, 387 294, 87 1642, 18 782 (1967); Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 452, 85 564, 570, 13 broad range when Support proposition drawn fact considerations deemed justifications forum prisoners—e.g., necessity 'last say' questions inadequacy procedures preserve claims, concern judges unsympathetic created rights, institutional constraints exercise Court's certiorari convictions—do obtain told prisoner, having day court, stands position regard than prisoner. Conceding distinction, unable understand why it lead us restrict, completely severely, access remedies, while placing similar restriction 11 opportunity assert clearly justification ederal relief; otherwise need all. rests fundamentally adequate relating requires continuing mechanism relief. less 12 313, 318, S.Ct., 757, 760, set down circumstances must claims—including, seizure—presented prisoners: 'If (1) merits factual dispute resolved hearing; (2) determination fairly supported whole; (3) employed afford full fair (4) substantial allegation newly discovered evidence; (5) material developed state-court (6) reason appears trier hearing. 'In dispute, holding hearing discretion judge.' 15 Of these, duty scrutinize procedure' apply prisoner; hypothesis assure underlying rights. request asserts tested suppress Fed. Rule Crim.Proc. 41(e), stop adequacy established Rule. respect, only, differ perceive differences situations allegations listed Sain scrutiny court.8 16 adopted pressed exalts value finality judgments expense interest each vindication Such benefits runs most basic precepts system 841, involving claimed confession coerced, said 'conventional notions litigation permitted defeat manifest policy personal without fullest plenary judicial review.' expressed 8, 1073, prisoner: '(c)onventional place life stake infringement alleged.' philosophy inheres seizure. Plainly With both, Congress attack. right merely consideration Federal There destructive guarantees errors, nor give greater preclusive effect procedural defaults defendants defendants. To hold reflect anomalous erroneous federal-state relations. 17 agree suggestion BLACK'S dissent weight accorded controlling context retroactive serves significantly secure No service performed extending retroactively. contributes present vitality bear process. More fundamentally, logic brings into propriety itself. turn possibility innocence; protect citizens, citizen seizures. Miller 357 301, 78 1190, 1332, 1197 (1958): 19 'We duly mindful reliance society achieving order enforcing agencies law. insistence observance officers traditional requirements is, long point view, best calculated contribute end. However much particular rules appear technicality inures benefit person, proves tolerance short-cut methods impairs enduring effectiveness. Every householder, good bad, innocent, common invasion house.' Finally, concession participation misplaced. That irrelevant Surely defense, prejudiced evidence. 21 thus reject adopt reasoning Judge Wright's case, U.S.App.D.C., 123, F.2d, 831: 'There undoubtedly difference tre t Brown Allen, (344 443) 508, 73 397 (97 469) (opinion Frankfurter), interprets 2241 requiring applying often passed Allen relitigation inapposite. provides basis grounds formulating separate determine prisoner's adjudicated. Where 'say' claim, relitigation. what nothing because raised? What unclear merits? new uncovered since appeal? rulings findings after 'full fair' within meaning (1963)? All problems operates equally situations. These raise, necessary, one afforded. indeed, especially maintaining relations, precluding precluded defects rendering adjudications inadequate similarly affect adjudications.' 23 therefore proceeding. reversed remanded further consistent 24 ordered. 25 Order remanded. 26 MARSHALL took decision 27 BLACK, dissenting. robbing association pistol. Part revolver, some stolen traveler's checks, money-order receipt, traffic summons, gasoline receipts. During conceded petitioner contended responsible crime mentally ill time. An Appeals, (C.A.8th Cir. 1965), certiorari, 383 951, 86 1211, 212 (1966). Three months later—after become considered 'final'—he 2255, asking vacated ground, among others, suppressing articles Despite never, either actually physically pistol, despite plainly reliable shows, along insane, reversing collaterally judgment final. I dissent. 29 My my belief every fter conclusion relief.1 And, reference corpus, 30 'Discretion implicit command judge 'dispose justice require,' 2243 438, 848, 837. 31 important factor relate vulnerable applicant's innocence. illustration, few think whose show convicted. 32 substantially involve challenges convictions, crucial question, certain types keep relevant trustworthy result normally open fully carefully U.S.App.D.C. 822 Leventhal states:2 33 '(G)enerally below, exception *. 34 'Many opinions declare attack, correct right. general absolute. 35 called evolve vindicate However, imperative additional, review, leaving stone unturned, exploration avenues behest individual petitioners impair courts, making interminable, diverting resources judiciary.' 36 formerly country impervious could rule, obviously harsh might people indefensible one, now abandoned. finally put rest (1963). element probable possible innocence determining affirmance great historic role insure reliability guilt-determining process.3 Noia two codefendants c nvicted felony murder New York sentenced imprisonment. confession. While appealed, not, fear secured reversal reconvicted second death. confessions codefendant subsequently found Second coerced practices described 'satanic.' ex rel. Caminito Murphy, 222 698, 701 (1955). Noia's reversed, People Bonino, N.Y.2d 752, 152 N.Y.S.2d 298, 135 N.E.2d 51, guilty, State apparently declined reprosecute free. See Fay, 183 222, 227, n. (1960). languished prison, alleged confederates released. Both 1942 failure 'final.' He remained jail 'continuously (had) convicted' petition elsewhere. Transcript Record 84, October Term, 1962, p. 8. 37 strongly appealing sense required, Brother HARLAN, dissenting, how wrongly consigned slow, tedious, uncertain road whatever possibly get Chief Executive. agreed bright landmarks justice. laid inflexible compelling flaw, regardless nature, guilt innocence, beginning end, defendant's least defendant. repeatedly emphasized go equitable play corpus: 38 'Although affected incurred during proceedings, recognize deny circumstances. Discretion judge, granting appropriate scope, 2243; flexible concept developing exhaustion Furthermore, traditionally regarded governed principles.'4 39 And closing paragraph, stressed: 40 'Today always indeed number eventually win freedom means corpus. Those ultimately successful whom grievously wronged w om belated liberation little enough compensation.'5 41 Surely, Kaufman, robber, 'society compensation.' Although, thought broadly securing redress 'constitutional right,' until Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961), almost right' referred played central assuring testing guilt. prohibition vigorously enforced proof itself unreliable, Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 735, 760 extent 'may been, unascertained extent, untrustworthy,' Id., 541, 740. 42 A crucially many rights; ordinarily rendered untrustworthy alone establishes beyond virtually shadow guilty. example today. Harris Nelson, 286, 1082, 281. charge possession marihuana, being later attacked marihuana home, it. evidently allege single indicate slightest innocent charged. Under implies disrespect simple treatment correspond Thornton:6 43 'Our (in exceptional circumstances) attributable low significance times civilization. magnitude constellation prompted unusual well 44 '* corollary, contraction enlarging interests involved.' 45 provisions Bill Rights, include, degree, goal insuring reliable. again, primary overriding purpose, seizures police. Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 636—637, 1731, 1741, 601 (1965): 46 'Mapp prime through inclusion This, found, lawless police action. Indeed, Wolf (v. Colorado, 338 25, 69 1359, 93 1782 (1949)) action.' 47 How unqua ified today something mystery. course, shortcomings inherent human impossible eliminate entirely incentives conduct search. rather fanciful, suggest inevitable decreased significant provided litigate upheld reviewing validity questioned Understandably, effort justify terms long-recognized instead string citations supposedly settle ante, 225, neglects mention cites contains intimation considered.7 48 gleaned statement 'exalts rights.' Ante, 228. astonishing directly applied subject, Elkins 364 206, 217, 80 1437, 1444, 1669 (1960), said: (exclusionary) prevent, repair. Its deter—to compel guaranty effectively way—by removing incentive disregard it.' vindicated stressed Linkletter, supra: say (deterrent) advanced retrospective. misconduct prior occurred will corrected releasing involved. reptured privacy victims' homes effects restored. Reparation comes too late.' 637, 174. 49 adherence continued various 'retroactivity' cases, including today's Desist 244, 1030, 248, emphasizes, quoting "(t)he involved," 'procedural weapon bearing guilt." hard apt summary holdings 'exal(t) chosen steer, amiss decide achieve modest semblance consistency. Instead adopts offers 50 seemingly becoming difficult gain acceptance punishment desirable, things equal. One commentator, attempted vain dissuade holding, 'a strong public convicting guilty.'8 Indeed soon come ever-cautions reviews forced offer timid contention, recently suggested satirically, 'crime socially undesirable, control 'valid governmental objective' 'rationally related."9 51 however technical seem, leads results. let invulnerable left remaining probability commands related violated. failed perform obligation prove reasonable crime. quite thing permit according due own admission, may, allowance justified applicable principles. Some falling category enumerated examined others,10 disposition case.11 narrow attempt pass contend, below refusing follow announcing attacks require kind casts although robbed absolutely knew doing. certain, surely 52 STEWART joins, 53 cancur opinion, contest allegedly sort must, disassociate myself implications, see, 232-233, 234-236, turns assertion allegation. 54 add main roots situation BLACK rightly inveighs 837 opened wide gates re-examination Be entrance practicable manner. rejecting opportunity, once again* Term imposes burden judiciary large, results legitimate serve 55 pertinent are: 'A custody claiming released Constitution laws impose sentence, excess maximum authorized move vacate, aside sentence. 'Unless files records conclusively cause notice thereof attorney, prompt thereon, issues conclusions thereto. If finds render hall discharge resentence appropriate. entertain production required successive behalf prisoner.' intiated pro se motion. assistance counsel. ordered appointed assist Counsel supplemental presenting automobile illegal. Warren Cir., 311 673, 675 Springer 340 950 (1965); Peters 312 481 Gendron Accord: Re, 641 (C.A.2d 1967); Jenkins, 281 193 (C.A.3d 1960); Armstead 318 725 (C.A.5th 1963); Eisner 351 (C.A.6th 1965); De Welles (C.A.7th Williams 307 366 (C.A.9th 1962). overlooked 'this *' event renders unavailable. take deprive adjudicate claims; refusal 438—440, 848—849, 451—452, 569—570, certainly 'deliberate by-pass' Appointed objected seizur , assign oral wrote letter submit items automobile. forwarded Clerk notified panel heard considering affirming Sutton, 321 221 (C.A.4th Gaitan 317 494 (C.A.10th 1963). Among serious administrative practice requirement action brought confinement, readily available. changed court. 212—219, 268—272 (1952). Lange, 163, Wall. 872 (1874); Wilson, 417, 935, (1885); Callan 127 540, 1301, 223 (1888); Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 1110 (1892); Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 1461 (1938); Bowen Johnston, 306 59 442, 455 (1939); Waley 316 101, 62 964, 1302 (1942); Von Moltke Gillies, 708, 68 316, 92 309 (1948); collected 17, 832. substitute appeal,' 3, 482 Cir.); 'Section trial,' 57 'Questions concerning admissibility indirectly reviewed dealt proceeding,' 'It allowed far concerned, bar resort relief,' Nash 366, 1965). paraphrase 178, 1590 non-constitutional error. Sobell, 314 314, 322—323 exercised '(u)nless standards governing 2255. Similarly, motion, files, records, relief.' 125, 833 (1966) (dissenting Wright, J.). deliberately bypassed orderly appeal—e.g., Fed.Rule 41(e) App.Proc. 4(b). 848; 569—570. jurisdiction, appropriate.' (Emphasis supplied.) 116—118, 824—826. Mishkin, Supreme 1964 Term—Foreword: High Great Writ, Due Process Time Law, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 56, 79—86 848. 440—441, 850. 118, 826. Only decisions, (1968), (as (1967)) theoretically mentioned Warden's Amsterdam, Search, Seizure, 2255: Comment, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 378, 389 (1964). (parody ed.) 10, (March 1966). 391—392, 60. unjustifiably frustrated efforts 220, 3. Gardner California, 393 367, 371, 580, 583, (1969).

Category: 0