Document: 414 U.S. 338 94 S.Ct. 613 38 L.Ed.2d 561 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.John P. CALANDRA. No. 72—734. Argued Oct. 11, 1973. Decided Jan. 8. 1974. Syllabus When respondent's place of business was being searched by federal agents under a warrant issued in connection with gambling investigation and specifying that the object search to discover seize bookmaking records wagering paraphernalia, one agent, knowing pending loansharking activities, discovered seized suspected record. Subsequently, grand jury investigating activities subpoenaed respondent query him on evidence, but he refused testify Fifth Amendment grounds. After Government then requested transactional immunity for respondent, District Court granted suppression motion grounds affidavit supporting insufficient exceeded scope warrant, further ordered need not answer any jury's questions based suppressed evidence. The Appeals affirmed. Held: A witness summoned appear before may refuse ground they are evidence obtained from an unlawful seizure. Pp. 342 355. (a) exclusionary rule, which violation Fourth or fruits such cannot be used criminal proceeding against victim illegal seizure, is judicially created remedy designed safeguard rights generally through its deterrent effect future police conduct, rather than personal constitutional right party aggrieved. 347—348. (b) Despite broad purpose, rule does proscribe use illegally all proceedings persons, application has been restricted those areas where remedial objectives though most efficaciously served. 348. (c) Allowing invoke would unduly interfere effective expeditious discharge duties, extending achieve only speculative minimal advance deterring misconduct at expense substantially impeding role. 349—352. (d) Grand seizure involve no independent governmental invasion privacy, usual abridgment thereof common questioning. Such derivative product past work new wrong. 353—355. 6 Cir., 465 F.2d 1218, reversed. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Robert J. Rotatori, Cleveland, Ohio, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents question whether issue considerable importance administration justice. 2 * On December 1970, authorizing John Calandra's business, Royal Machine & Tool Co. Ohio. extensive operations. It specified discovery paraphernalia. master submitted support contained information derived statements confidential informants Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI), physical surveillance conducted FBI agents, court-authorized electronic surveillance.1 3 occupies two-story building. first floor consists about 13,000 square feet, houses industrial machinery inventory. second contains general office area 1,500 feet small occupied Calandra, president company, his secretary. 15, executed directed thorough, four-hour premises. record reveals spent more three hours searching files. 4 Although found discovered, among certain promissory notes, card indicating Dr. Walter Loveland had making periodic payments Calandra. agent stated aware United States Attorney's Northern Ohio possible violations 18 U.S.C. §§ 892, 893, 894, dealing extortionate credit transactions, 'loansharking' enterprise investigation. concluded bearing Loveland's name therefore it along various other items, including books stock certificates, address books. 5 March 1, 1971, special convened investigate laws. Calandra order ask during 1970. appeared August 17, testify, invoking privilege self-incrimination. grant pursuant § 2514. received postponement hearing Government's so could prepare suppress search. later moved Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 41(e) return warrant. 27, held stipulated materials. October entered judgment ordering returned 332 F.Supp. 737 (1971). court 'due process . allows litigate constitutes basis asked way violates protection seizure.' Id., 742. without probable cause 7 Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding properly entertained invoked bar questioning seizure.2 1218 (1972). offer deemed irrelevant. 1221. 8 We petition certiorari, 410 925, 93 1357, 35 585 (1973). now reverse. II 9 institution deeply rooted Anglo-American history.3 In England, served centuries both as body accusers sworn present trial persons wrongdoing protector citizens arbitrary oppressive action. this country Founders thought essential basic liberties provided prosecution serious crimes can instituted 'a presentment indictment Jury.' Cf. Costello v. States, 350 359, 361—362, 76 406, 408, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). historic functions survive day. Its responsibilities continue include determination there believe crime committed unfounded prosecutions. Branzburg Hayes, 408 665, 686—687, 92 2646, 2658—2659, 33 626 10 Traditionally accorded wide latitude inquire into law. No judge presides monitor proceedings. deliberates secret determine alone course inquiry. compel production testimony witnesses considers appropriate, operation unrestrained technical procedural evidentiary rules governing conduct trials. 'It inquest, powers inquisition, whose inquiries limited narrowly propriety forecasts result investigation, doubts particular individual will subject accusation crime.' Blair 250 273, 282, 39 468, 471, 63 979 (1919). 11 reflects role insuring fair law enforcement. adversary guilt innocence accused adjudicated. Rather, ex parte should person. investigative power must if public responsibility adequately discharged. supra, U.s., 700, S.Ct., 2665; U.S., 364, 409. 12 Branzburg, occasion reaffirm role: 13 '(T)he implements fundamental securing safety person property citizen ..' 2666. 14 'The important instrument enforcement necessarily includes investigatory function respect determining who it. 'When performing problem society's interest best thorough investigation.' Wood Georgia, 370 375, 392 (82 1364, 1374, 569) (1962). 'is fully carried out until every available clue run down examined proper find committed.' Stone, 429 138, 140 (C.A.2 1970). triggered tips, rumors, proffered prosecutor, knowledge jurors. 362 (76 406 408). after made 701—702, 15 sources widely drawn, validity affected character considered. Thus, valid face challenge acted inadequate incompetent supra; Holt 218 245, 31 2, 54 1021 (1910); even defendant's self-incrimination, Lawn 355 339, 78 311, 321 (1958). 16 also firmly established. Kastigar 441, 1653, 32 212 duty long recognized obligation owes Government. Blackmer 284 421, 438, 52 252, 255, 375 (1932); Bryan, 339 323, 331, 70 724, 730, 884 (1950). 682 688, 2657 2660 noted '(c)itizens constitutionally immune subpoenas 'the standing principle man's evidence' particularly applicable proceedings.' burdensome embarrassing. injury witness' social economic status. Yet regarded 'so necessary justice' privacy yield public's overriding full disclosure. 281, 471. Furthermore, He entitled urge objections incompetency irrelevancy, might raise, concern his.' Nor 'to authority jury' set limits conduct.' Ibid. 17 Of course, subpoena unlimited.4 consider itself violate privilege, established Constitution, statutes, Wigmore, Evidence 2290—2391 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961). Although, example, nevertheless valid, force guarantee. override claim co-extensive supra. Similarly, produce papers incriminate him. Boyd 116 616, 633—635, 524, 533—534, 29 746 (1886). Couch 409 322, 611, 34 548 invade legitimate protected Amendment. duces tecum disallowed 'far too sweeping terms reasonable' Hale Henkel, 201 43, 76, 26 370, 380, 50 652 (1906). Judicial supervision exercised cases prevent wrong occurs. III instant case, prior adopted effectuate secure their houses, papers, effects, unreasonable searches seizures Under Weeks 232 383, 341, 58 (1914); Mapp 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961). prohibition applies well Wong Sun 371 83 407, 441 (1963); Silverthorne Lumber 251 385, 40 182, 64 319 (1920). 19 purpose redress victim: 20 ruptured victims' homes effects restored. Reparation comes late.' Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 637, 85 1731, 1742, 601 (1965). 21 Instead, rule's prime deter thereby guarantee seizures: 22 calculated prevent, repair. deter—to guaranty effectively way—by removing incentive disregard it.' Elkins 364 206, 217, 80 1437, 1444, 1669 (1960). 23 Accord, 656, 1692; Tehan rel. Shott, 382 416, 86 459, 465, 453 (1966); Terry 29, 88 1868, 1884, 889 (1968). sum, effect, aggrieved.5 24 never interpreted persons. As device, balancing implicit approach expressed contours requirement. confined situations seeks Brown 411 223, 1565, 36 208 (1973); Alderman 294 165, 89 961, 176 (1969); Jones 257, 725, 697 premised recognition deterrence hence rationale excluding strongest imposition sanction search.6 IV 25 deciding extend proceedings, we weigh potential benefits applied context. evident extension seriously impede jury. Because finally adjudicate innocence, traditionally allowed pursue accusatorial unimpeded restrictions trial. Permitting precipitate adjudication issues hitherto reserved merits delay disrupt Suppression hearings halt orderly progress necessitate extended litigation tangentially related primary objective.7 'protracted interruption proceedings,' Gelbard 41, 70, 2357, 2372, 179 (1972) (White, J., concurring), transforming them preliminary trials merits. some fatal Just last Term reaffirmed our disinclination allow litigious interference proceedings: 'Any saddle minitrials showings assuredly frustrate laws.' Dionisio, 764, 773, 67 27 Ryan, 402 530, 91 1580, (1971); Cobbledick 309 60 540, 84 783 (1940). allowing duties. 28 Against damage jury, proposed rule. method effectuating But follow requires adoption proposal misconduct. 394 174—175, 967, declined search: values preventing incrimination have violated considered sufficient justify probative defendant weakened destroyed. adhere judgment. convinced additional defendants encroachment upon prosecuting having acquitted convicted exposes truth.' 30 think observation equally Any incremental achieved uncertain best. Whatever exclusion trials, unrealistic assume significantly goal. consciously toward solely requirement obtain negated inadmissibility subsequent victim. For part, prosecutor unlikely request conviction obtained. decline embrace view undoubtedly jury.8 V Respondent argues each fresh rights.9 Ordinarily, Absent confidentiality, man testimony. compulsory responses prove embarrassing unwelcome disclosure affairs. Respondent's be, therefore, merely that, because somehow constitute distinct rights. disagree. intrusions one's person, house, effects. condemned unjustified these individual's life. That wrong, accomplished original cause. Questions They Whether proscribed question, rights, remedies. context trial, of, reach fulfill proceeding, unprecedented urged outweighs benefit effect. Our conclusion controls therefrom (the search).10 same considerations logic policy apply do distinguish between them.11 Reversed. 37 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. holds search-and-seizure principal objective conduct,' ante, 347, 'it goal.' Ante, 351. downgrading type furthers startling misconception, unless purposeful rejection, historical commands are, officials. Necessarily, official evil threatened make dead letter. curtailment evil, consideration all, hoped-for ultimate objective. Indeed, given attention judges chiefly responsible formulation. Their guardians Bill Rights fashion tool give content meaning Amendment's guarantees. thus bore James Madison's prediction First Congress June 8, 1789: 'If rights) incorporated tribunals justice themselves peculiar manner rights; impenetrable bulwark assumption Legislative Executive; naturally led resist expressly Constitution declaration rights.' Annals Cong. 439 (1789). 41 Since, however, were direct control officers, capable judges. perfect, twin goals enabling judiciary avoid taint partnership lawlessness assuring people—all victims government conduct—that profit lawless behavior, minimizing risk undermining popular trust government. 42 considerations, uppermost minds framers clearly emerges decision fashioned it: 43 put courts officials, exercise authority, limitations restraints forever people, guise tendency execute laws means judgments courts, charged times people conditions appeal maintenance 44 'This action officers acting To affirm judicial manifest neglect, open defiance, prohibitions intended unauthorized action.' 391—392, 394, 344, 345, (1914) (emphasis added). 45 Brandeis Holmes added enormous influence precepts notable dissents Olmstead 277 48 564, 72 944 (1928). said: 46 'In laws, existence imperiled fails observe scrupulously. potent, omnipresent teacher. good ill, teaches whole example. Crime contagious. If becomes lawbreaker, breeds contempt law; invites become unto himself; anarchy.' 485, 575. And 47 '(W)e two objects desire have, up choose. desirable criminals detected, end used. foster pay crimes, when choose, my part I less escape play ignoble part. '. existing code permit district attorneys hand dirty iniquities succeed.' 470, 49 principles reiterated six years ago. 12—13, 1875, (1968), Chief Warren said Court: serves another vital function—'the imperative integrity.' 222, (80 1447, 1669) Courts sit invasions permitting unhindered invasions.' 51 true prominent (1961), retrospective lends today's depends invocation goal deterrence. emphasis understood light crucial fact justifiably relied 1949 1961 Wolf Colorado, 25, 69 1359, 1782 (1949), consequently, required wholesale release innumerable prisoners, few successfully retried. circumstance, intergrity process.' 1742. Kaufman 229, 1068, 1075, 227 (1969). errs describing 'part parcel limitation (governmental) privacy,' 651, 1689, 'an Fourteenth Amendments,' 657, 1693, 'gives guarantees him, officer honest entitled, and, integrity justice.' 660, 1694. 53 summation crystallizes series decisions developed plainly war. time, today discounts point extinction insure slightest appearance sanctioning conduct. rejection integrity,' 1446, (1960), openly '(t)he staffed hypocrites, (a conviction) easy instill difficult erase.' Paulsen, Exclusionary Rule Misconduct Police, J.Crim.L.C. P.S. 258 'accomplices willful disobedience uphold,' imperil very foundation people's democracy rests. See Lee 343 747, 758—759, 974—975, 96 1270 (1952) (Frankfurter, dissenting). needed something real; carry chimera. Moreover, '(I)nsistence observance traditional requirements is, view, contribute end. However much insistence technicality inures guilty history proves tolerance shortcut methods impairs enduring effectiveness.' Miller 357 301, 313, 1190, 1197, 1332 55 embodied better go free behave forbidden fashion. similar decide (1920), denied access relevant papers. unlawfully belonging Silverthornes corporation, presented documents previously indicted Silverthornes, copies prepared interim impounded. returning originals, attempted recoup issuance tecum. Compliance refused, convictions followed. reversing convictions, Court, speaking Holmes, barred utilizing act, stating essence provision forbidding acquisition acquired shall all.' 392, 183. 56 case. Respondent, like plaintiffs error Silverthorne,1 furnishing called supply 'on status defendants,' since effort 'founded belief useful already authorized jury.' 352 n. founded belief. Overlooked again obtaining leading charges, especially indictments individuals, consequence initial submission Brief Behalf Plaintiffs Error 358, O.T.1919, pp. 4, 18—19.2 Only overruled precedential affirmance here denied. 57 Congressional evidenced enactment 2515, providing '(w)henever wire oral communication intercepted, contents chapter.' (Emphasis added.) (1972), aside comply interrogation communications allegedly intercepted wiretapping surveillance. reasons track advanced Silverthorne. purposes 2515 Title subverted plain command ignored interception interception. protect communications, ensure partners conduct: enacted administrative Consequently, witness, pain imprisonment, disclose bars unequivocal thwart congressional protecting entangle acts agents.' 51, 2362. (footnotes omitted). 59 Similarly subjected files (Fourth Amendments' protection) 'And court, executive department, sentence (himself) (search seizure), jail refusal participate exploitation (conduct explicit Amendment) stand system head.' re Evans, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 452 1239, 1252 (1971) (Wright, concurring). answer, suggest does, witnesses' sufficiently 'by victim.' This, alternative criminally prosecuted. flaw penalty 'thwarts' 'entangle(s) agents' consequences intolerable. 61 sure, 'provide inadmissible anyone purpose.' 175, distinction withholding cover individuals violated—as done 'standing' cases, (1960) withdrawing abridged. 62 seek vicariously assert another's himself desires mend (but his) own.' 63, 2369 (Douglas, told look damages concededly unconstitutional privacy. words, officialdom willing price. Mapp, 'close(d) courtroom door remaining secured lawlessness' 654—655, 1691. ajar. consequence, am left uneasy feeling signal majority colleagues positioned reopen still abandon altogether cases; surely deterrence, 'significantly' so. Unless shut eyes crosses desks day, concede abated empirical data distinguishes fear next confront rested sustained also, assume' 'significantly further' though, presently undeterred, see how removal induce lawful gave life 'independent betray step abandonment observations recent commentator highlight grievous majority's retreat: 65 anything pious pronouncements, measurable attached violation. intolerable practical consequence. likewise procedure review alleged articulate advantage rule—entirely apart effect—is provides review, gives credibility By demonstrating society attach invokes magnifies moral educative Over term integrate fourth amendment ideals value norms behavior agencies.' Oaks, Studying Search Seizure, U.Chi.L.Rev. 756 (1970). 66 Dellinger, Remedies: Sword, Harv.L.Rev. 1532, 1562—1563 dissent Appeals. affidavit, warrants residence automobile. involves affirmed Court's finding unlawful. 1226 5. agree court's finding, sought issue. addition, challenged directing discussion 407—408, (1956); 279—283, 470—471, (1919); 59, 372, (1906); W. Blackstone, Commentaries *301 et seq.; G. Edwards, Jury 1—44 Pollock Maitland, History English Law 151 (2d 1909); Holdsworth, 321—323 (7th rev.ed. 1956). several respects. 359 49, 79 539, 545, 609 (1959); Fed.Rules 17; L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Rules 6:108, 475—477 (1966). particular, rely books, documents, witnesses, quash modify subponea compliance 'unreasonable oppressive.' 17(c). There disagreement efficacy 218, '(e)mpirical statistics available.' 665 extent 41(e). F.2d, 1222 1224. provides, '(a) aggrieved move states 'no broader rule.' 173 6, 996 41(e), statutory expansion 2514 irrelevant Parts III, IV, opinion. argument illustrated facts date decision, almost one-half elapsed 1971 completely frustrated. relies primarily contends 'plainly case.' Post, 362. lumber company company. impounded photographs originals. Later, caused citation. judgment, invalid citing (1914). writing 'essence distinguishable significant There, defendants. recapturing documents' did neeed perform functions. exclude Finally, subpoenas, illegal. raised time pre-indictment requiring contrast, defendant. principles, deprive circumstances, certainly controlling. dictum construed different note undermined cases. At argument, counsel contention follows: 'I submit Jury, Amendment, (amounts to) new, immediate .. (A) violation, amounts intrusion Amendment.' Tr. Oral Arg. 17. '(R)efusing conceivably rise answering 20. absent remedies future. maintain Bivens Six Unknown Named Agents Narcotics, 403 388, 1999, 619 ruturn property, Go-Bart Importing 282 153, 75 374 (1931). say remediless dissent's reliance misplaced. Tit. Omnibus Control Safe Streets Act 1968, 82 Stat. 211, amended, 2510 2520. defense charge brought exclusively interpretation represented afford safeguards unique problems posed misuse indication, either legislative history, restatement White concurring Gelbard, 'unquestionably works change .' 2372. voices "the integrity," 'illegal 'imperil Government.' 360. alarm. 'Illegal conduct' hardly sanctioned, nor foundations Republic imperilled, declining prejudiced. (1965); cited Neither Co., (1906), immunity, comparable. (Silverthorne's claim) presumably assertion occasioned delay. However, earlier intimation improperly considering application.

Category: 0