Document: 336 U.S. 793 69 S.Ct. 824 93 L.Ed. 1042 UNITED STATESv.WALLACE & TIERNAN CO., Inc., et al. No. 416. Argued March 29, 1949. Decided May 2, Appeal from the United States District Court for Rhode Island. Mr. Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., appellant. Charles H. Tuttle, New York City, appellees. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 The basic question here is whether Fourth Amendment's prohibition unreasonable searches and seizures bars utilizing certain documentary evidence in this civil anti-trust proceeding instituted Subsidiary procedural questions involve doctrine res judicata.1 We proceed at once to consideration important since reasons later given we reject subsidiary judicata contentions. 2 First. Whether Government has a right utilize can be best understood by an immediate reference Court's holding Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. States, 51 385, 40 182, 183, 64 319, 24 A.L.R. 1426. Appellees contend that complete permanent bar Government's introduction documents as evidence, use obtain other or any purpose. 3 facts case found were these: Silverthornes having been indicted arrested their homes early morning detained custody some hours. While so officers 'without shadow authority' went office company made clean sweep all books, papers there. 'All employees taken directed go Attorney which also &c., once.' ordered etc., returned on finding search seizure violated constitutional rights parties. Photographs copies made, new indictment was based upon knowledge thus obtained. Subpoenas then issued calling production original papers. Upon refusal produce, one imprisoned contempt. 4 This viewed whole performance unlawful books 'outrage,' planned least retified Government. Under these circumstances it held neither entitled nor obtained originals, photostats, copies. rule announced 'gained own wrong' not merely forbidden 'used before court but shall used all.' Other cases have applied same rule.2 It extraordinary sanction, judicially imposed, limit those conducted strict compliance with commands Amendment. 5 In us, however, did appellees' offices seize documents. Officers served subpoena appellees them produce designated grand jury investigation. challenged ground broad sweeping constitute under times rejected contention, do urge here. Thus cannot thought form method its enforcement constitutes even 'constructive' barred 'unreasonable' Oklahoma Press Pub. Walling, 327 186, 202—208, 66 494, 502—505, 90 614, 166 531. And up point nothing happened remotely analogous situation evoked condemnation case. But subsequent developments call application rule. Those follows: 6 produced against others charging violations §§ Sherman Act.3 Shortly after decided Ballard 329 187, 67 261, 91 181, motion dismissed practice intentionally systematically excluding women panel rendered illegally constituted body. On day granted return previously impounded Later number photostats had discussing reaffirmed belief (76 F.Supp. 215, 217) 'subpoenas violate Amendment presentation legal jury.' held, 'when turned out * subpoenas amounted violation *.' 7 order implement congressional policy 'truly representative' cross section community, case, supra, exclusion required dismissal indictment. effect add requirement further sanction devised prevent For there no official culpability issuance service duces tecum. sole ultimate reason jury, circumstance bears only remote if wholly theoretical relationship seizure. agred requires such result. 8 Aside limited extent applies process, see 531, are why exclusionary should extended That stems said command rests 'upon desirability magistrates rather than police determine when permissible what limitations placed activities.' Trupiano 334 699, 705, 68 1229, 1232, 92 1663; McDonald 335 451, 455—456, 191, 193. without authority magistrate. nature probably could authorized warrant. Weeks 232 383, 393—394, 34 341, 344 345, 58 652, L.R.A.1915B, 834, Ann.Cas.1915C, 1177. explained designed safeguard privacy people, property except valid judicial process. As tersely stated rule's purpose being reduced 'a words.' 9 Only engaging most exaggerated apprehensions action prosecuting considered threat They subpoena. approved it. There claim improper manner officer committed wrong way handled returned. At many highly relevant serious mo opoly offenses charged contribute invasion privacy. Dismissal transform proper conduct into type condemned cases. 10 true metaphysical argument support strained analogy between 'illegal' 'so-called' must treated though group competitors. superficial plausibility word level, attention substance symbols speciousness exposed. 11 Whatever injury may suffered resulted absence remedied freeing prosecution Furthermore here, called sense, kind prompted hold wrongful forfeited opportunity make unlawfully seized. decline extend extent. Amendment, our society, does imposition justicial sanctions where enforcing followed law punctilious regard they because sufficient making summoned 12 Second. time dismissed, document defendants. appeal dismissing See Hark, 320 535—536, 359, 361, 88 290. contended failure appeal, challenging orders. 13 Assuming court's properly returned, means follows orders permanently future evidence. failing indictment—a believed supported pending illegal created matter course. Consequently, alone, taken, would availed nothing. foregoing requiring affect proceedings. 14 demand affected photostatic Return like necessarily recognized directing said, 'Since motions stem Indictment 6055, Clerk motions, hearings thereon, part record indictment.' 15 Third. rely third 'precluding restraining using knowledge, information contained aforesaid seized documents.' entered prior quashed tecum refused 'decree outlawry' acquired them; order; become final binding asked proceeding. denies intended proscriptive urged respondents. addition, contends interlocutory therefore appealable. latter premise relies 'familiar judgment parties.' Merriam Saalfield, 241 22, 28, 36 477, 480, 60 868. 16 To both phases contention—scope appealability—depend independent plenary suppress forthcoming trial. suppression appealable scope relief far beyond trial; decision trial more step particular event determined circumstances. Cogen 278 221, 49 118, 73 275. think show now general 'outlawry' involved, criminal pending. 17 After filed offense. defendants (1) dismiss information; (2) alternative expunge documents; (3) preclude restrain denied (3). motion, opinion, bore title (6070) During colloquies took place counsel emphasized related 'Criminal 6070.' argued length district judge. position Cobbledick 309 323, 540, 84 783; Rosenwasser, Cir., 145 F.2d 1015, 156 1200. He careful about order, expressing argue enough indicated his plans subsequently present issue proceeding, taking lie. await entry until carried out. Appellees' told 'The Kelleher concern Civil 6055. Criminal preclusion 'only criminal) action.' 'Then you ahead plan your Finally, just conclusion hearing counsel, 'I don't how going prejudice concerned 6070 (criminal charge) time, I understand it.' 18 proceedings leading deemed proceedings, 227, 120, 275; proceedings; stand availability 19 contentions merit. 20 Reversed. moved § Expediting Act February 11, 1903, 32 Stat. 823, U.S.C. amended, L. 773, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 17, June 25, 1948, U.S.C.A. 29. appealed request' prayed complaint prejudice. ordered.' denying doucments essential prove fails sustain contention invited enter action. filing another suit cause unappealable, denial ended concerned. Wecker National Enameling Stamping Co., 204 176, 181—182, 27 184, 430, Ann.Cas. 757. City Lines, 573, 577, 1169, 1171, 1584, Bowles Beatrice Creamery 146 774. overruled. 1177; Johnson 333 10, 367, 436; Go-Bart Importing 282 344, 153, 75 374; Byars 273 47 248, 71 520; Gouled 255 298, 41 65 647; Lefkowitz, 285 452, 52 420, 76 877, 82 775; cf. Harris 331 145, 1098, 1399; Zap 328 624, 1277, 1477; Davis 582, 1256, 1453. 26 209, amended 50 693, 1, 2.

Category: 0