Document: 357 U.S. 493 78 S.Ct. 1253 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 Joy JONES, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 331. Argued April 7, 8, 1958. Decided June 30, Mr. Wesley R. Asinof, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner. Engene L. Grimm, respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 After a trial without jury in Federal District Court Northern Georgia, petitioner was found guilty various violations federal liquor laws, stemming from and including possession an unregistered still. See 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) §§ 5601, 5216, 5008, 5681, U.S.C.A. 5681. His claim is that some evidence used against him at should have been suppressed because it obtained by unlawful search seizure officers, its admission vitiates his conviction. The importance maintaining strict standards admissibility so challenged courts led us to grant certiorari. 355 810, 57, 29. alcohol agents received information on 1956, petitioner's farmhouse near Dawsonville, site illicit distillery current operation. Investigating this lead, discovered spent mash, product resulting distilling out hollow behind house. running mash emerged concealed rubber hose which, when traced as far consistent with caution, close home. On May 1, four one state officer returned vicinity. officers observed still emerging hose, detected distinctive odor hot direction house, heard coming within house sounds voices blower burner, commonly area heat distilleries. 3 At a.m. 2, abandoned their watch nearby city Gainesville. During day, Agent Langford United States Commissioner there daytime warrant basis affidavit describing what had asserting officer's belief sheltered distillery. Late afternoon, but daylight, five resumed surveillance Rather than execute once, they decided make further observations determine which parties were implicated operations whether any vehicles being used. 4 About 9 p.m., after darkness set in, truck entered yard retreated officers' sight Loud noises heard, shortly thereafter sought regain public road front became stuck driveway. arrested two men seized turned be 413 gallons nontaxpaid liquor. time passenger car carrying wife children drove into yard. rushed reached doorway before who then advancing towards it. She block entry placing her arms across door, informed identity officer, she demanded see warrant. said not required, brushed past Mrs. Jones seizing hands young boy shotgun he brandishing apparent effort prevent entry. 5 In time, addition children, father brother. did arrest them, immediately engaged general later admitted trial, boiler, fuel 15 barrels, rear rooms attic. Petitioner about hour completed. 6 moved suppress use articles hearing motion, Government conceded searched expired, disclaimed intention part urged '* * reasonableness under question.' Evans testified thought nighttime could dispensed crime committed our presence, least I assumed we probable cause that.'1 And explained position stating: sufficient go premises warrant.'2 court, denying motion suppress, findings fact conclusions law wherein stated (245 F.2d 35): 7 'The finds facts circumstances knowledge themselves man reasonable caution offense therefore existed made.' 8 Since so, since cautious (would warranted) (petitioner) operating home *,' court deemed reasonable, hence justified, despite failure obtain warrant, ability, circumstances, such entering holding, relied upon v. Rabinowitz, 339 56, 70 430, 94 L.Ed. 653. Appeals affirmed district judge. 245 32. Although must recognized lower decisions wholly free ambiguity, careful consideration record satisfies considered justified believe contained contraband materials utilized commission crime, necause indicent arrest. So viewed judgments below cannot squared Fourth Amendment Constitution States3 10 It settled doctrine certain subject are dwelling itself justify Agnello States, 269 20, 33, 46 4, 6, 145;4 Taylor 286 52 466, 467, 76 951. again underscored essential purpose shield citizen unwarranted intrustions privacy. See, e.g., Johnson 333 10, 14, 68 367, 369, 92 436; McDonald 335 451, 455, 69 191, 193, 93 153; cf. Giordenello 480, 1245. This realized Rule 41 Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., implements requiring impartial magistrate showing possessed law-enforcement justifies issuance Were merely home, provisions would become empty phrases, protection affords largely nullified. 11 case impressively bear these observations, difficult imagine more severe invasion privacy intrusion private occurred instance. specifically deal searches character restricting warrants situations where affidavits issued positive property place *.' 41(c). (Italics added.) hardly compatible principle can based cause. 12 supra, relied, has no application here. There agents, explored office defendant thereby trial. But search, executed previously defendant's stressed legality entirely dependent initial valid page 60, 432. exceptions rule rest jealously carefully drawn, incident among them. Jeffers, 342 48, 51, 72 93, 95, 96 59; Brinegar 338 160, 1302, 1879; pages 14—15, 369. None obtains case. 13 Government, however, first now maintains justifiable lawful Its argument is: involved authority person felony. From 'rational' infer arresting him, felony Consequently, agents' and, once while searching petitioner, properly seize all material plain sight. vitiate seizures. 14 These contentions, if open here, confront grave constitutional question, namely, forceful reasonably believed within, felony, reason appears why sought, Amendment. do consider issue fairly presented case, fails support theory advanced Government. testimony makes clear beyond dispute equipment, notes 1255, 1256.5 through judgment reversed. 16 Reversed. 17 BLACK concurs result. CLARK, whom BURTON concurs, dissenting. 19 many ways kill cat, drowning remains most favored. applies method conviction watering down Findings Fact Conclusions Law. By attributing them diluted meaning, rendered insupportable. 20 moonshine known violator, course investigation (1) 'spent mash' flowing 75 yards (2) 'blower burner' type generally distilleries, (3) smelled (4) moving heavy objects gained over two-day period. third day daylight resume instead executing dark, left walk up road, conversation, specifically, inquiry 'they ready brought house.' An back door thumpting sound suggesting 'activity objects' heard. truck, heavily laden, attempt leave yard; occupants arrested, contents—413 nontax paid liquor—were seized. Thereafter, son, just arrived, attempted bar telling wait until returned. anyway, disputed evidence. reveals premises, evening. 21 common sense seem dictate conclusion believing statement there, find prior offender, tip launched investigation. judge, fact, concluded 'the ground suspicion supported sufficiently strong Roy Court, takes mean both 'because arrest.' 22 duty, meaning somewhat doubtful, construe conform uphold judgment. Cf. Larkin Upton, 1892, 144 19, 21, 614, 36 330; Loring Frue, 1881, 104 223, 224, 713. done. Court's construction surprising places direct conflict elementary hornbook law, may 'notwithstanding unquestionably cause.' 1925, 145. feel learned judges well acquainted rule, words 'probable cause' referring ultimately others violating borne definition judge introduced crucial paragraph Law: 'Probable party charged.' Furthermore, 1950, 653, hinged majority, noting judge's 'has here'; contrary, appear majority overlooked only cited. 23 submit enter persons operation, finding return scene. Under always understood it, even protest, or perpetrators Mullaney Cir., 82 638; Appell 29 279; Mattus 503; Wharton, Procedure (10th ed.), § 51; Wilgus, Arrest Without Warrant, Mich.L.Rev. 541, 798, 800—807. 1932, 951; 5. here felon lawful, though complete incorrect. Love 170 32, 33. Such circumstance 'cannot distinguished accused Martin 183 436, 439. 24 right property. test lawfulness activity come offending If follows effect arrest, valid. Harris 1947, 331 145, 67 1098, 91 1399, during another crime; Steele 267 498, 45 414, 757, execution different 25 principles control would, therefore, affirm. witness testified: 'Q. What you inside went place? A. didn't crime. say your presence? saw transporting whiskey Through yard? Yes, sir. You stopped you? not? Neither fled they? No, anyone else 'knowledge,' no, sir.' cross-examination, ask That correct. Q. asked you, husband got there? did, yes.' answers amplified earlier testimony: Then Jones, himself, came not. Yet premises? correct.' people secure persons, houses, papers, effects, unreasonable seizures, shall violated, Warrants issue, cause, Oath affirmation, particularly searched, things sized.' said: 'Save cases sanction courts, state, Absence judicial approval persuasive unlawful. Belief, however founded, article furnishes justification held notwithstanding 6. We accept suggestion made disarm son shotgun. plainly enough passing episode entry, proceeded entire

Category: 0