Document: 365 U.S. 458 81 S.Ct. 650 5 L.Ed.2d 678 Burton N. PUGACH, Petitioner,v.Hon. Isidore DOLLINGER, District Attorney of Bronx County, et al. No. 111. Supreme Court the United States Argued Jan. 16, 1961. February 27, 1961 Mr. George Todaro, Miss Frances Kahn, New York City, for petitioner. Messrs. Walter E. Dillon and Irving Anolik, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed on authority Schwartz v. State Texas, 344 199, 73 232, 97 L.Ed. 231, Stefanelli Minard, 342 117, 72 118, 96 138. 2 Justice BRENNAN would also affirm but solely L.Ed.138. 3 DOUGLAS, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE concurs, dissenting. 4 In a pawnbroker was convicted as an accomplice in robbery. Records his telephone conversations, gotten by police eavesdropping, were admitted evidence against him during trial state court. He claimed that such inadmissible under 47 U.S.C. § 605, U.S.C.A. 605.1 This rejected claim without even stopping to see if indeed there had been violation federal statute. rationale rejection that, 'Where has carefully legislated so not render obtained sought be divulged laws States, this will extend implication statute invalidate specific language statute.' Id., 202, 235. later decision Benanti 355 96, 78 155, 126, swept away rationale, supra, today stands alone aberration from otherwise vigorous enforcement given congressional policy embodied 605. For Benanti, setting aside conviction, we held proscription wiretapping contained 605 forbade authorized executive officer State, acting explicit terms pursuant warrant issued judiciary. '(K)eeping mind (the) comprehensive scheme interstate regulation public underlying Section part scheme, find Congress, out prohibition plain terms, did mean allow legislation which contradict section policy.' 105—106, 161. It seems incongruous me sweeping purpose should now make detour around precincts especially true where, here, officials have shown avid taste violating law. See Dash, Knowlton, Eavesdroppers, pp. 68—69. circumstances, redress—other than exclusionary rule—against criminal acts those who bear badge law neither easy nor generous. Cf. Wolf People Colorado, 33, 25, 41, 42—44, 69 1359, 1369—1370, 93 1782 (dissenting opinion). 6 Yet majority summarily holds still law, petitioner left only consoling knowledge Congress meant protect privacy conversations,2 while benefits intendment are denied him. 7 Petitioner charged, court, commission several serious crimes. His complaint instant proceeding alleged 'on or about June 15th, 1959, thereafter' agents force tapped wires court 'obtained certain information.' That information, other it led, grand jury, indicted petitioner, press. But more importantly allegation Defendants intend use aforesaid illegal wire taps information through upon trial' imminently faces. prayer asked defendants enjoined 'from * indictments any grounds they may tapping evidence, investigations resulting instituted result taps.' 8 There no doubt, once wiretap put impending trial, remedy prejudice does either courts, Variano, N.Y.2d 391, 185 N.Y.S.2d 1, 157 N.E.2d 857, or, courts. 9 138, charged gambling laws. enjoin use, at invasion home, admittedly command Fourth Amendment. Relief exercise equitable discretion, three factors being relied on. First, said, could show irreparable injury, for, worst, he go jail suppressed. Second, supposed 'to intervene piecemeal try collateral issues.' page 123, 121. Third, overriding first two, traditional reluctance meddle proceedings, proceedings. 10 strongest expression found general injunctions stay proceedings court.' 28 2283, 2283. Although provision bars injunction operating party, after commencement wel directly Harkrader Wadley, 172 148, 19 119, 43 399; Ex parte Young, 209 161—162, 441, 454, 52 714, involved here. Here thrust relief wire-tap action itself. Hence bar maintaining action. Rea 350 214, 76 292, 100 233. Where, adjudication matters cannot adjudicated occasion invoke 'That historical mechanism (Act March 2, 1793, Stat. 334, 335) achieving harmony one phase our complicated federalism avoiding needless friction between two systems courts having potential jurisdiction over same subject-matter.' Hale Bimco Trading Co., 306 375, 378, 59 526, 527, 83 771. (Emphasis added.) I do reach questions raised before us alternative enjoining action3 withholding all relief. 11 Can dangers allowing early resort outweigh wrong subjecting risk conviction imprisonment strength criminally presented evidence? case where another. available right.4 appeal properly delayed, asserted error seen context whole review available. reason, discretion. If question protected, can never become basis offers remedy, discretion disappears. becomes legal clothes denial right guise mere procedural decision. Unless until overruled, deny preliminary threatened wholly unjustified. beneficent effect stultified admission tainted trials. individual, history assures us, protected its officers meets reward rather punishment. '* 'no person sender shall intercept communication divulge publish existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, meaning intercepted person' *.' Nardone 302 379, 58 275, 276, 82 314; 308 338, 60 266, 84 307; Weiss 321, 269, 298; supra; cf. Goldstein 316 114, 62 1000, 86 1312; Rathbun 107, 161, 134. refusal, matter void said based evidence. witness divulges less guilty crime. 201, 234. Nor, fact purported authorize tap save illegality. re Telephone Communications, Misc.2d 121, 170 84; Matter Interception 23 543, 198 572. As indicated my dissent 205, 236, am opinion search within Amendment, absence illegality consider procedure constitutional test reasonableness. forbidden. provides classes exception: (1) expressly Act (2) necessary aid jurisdiction, (3) effectuate judgments. Toucey Life Ins. 314 139, 100. Injunction long line defense federally secured rights. respects civil rights see, e.g., Truax Raich, 239 36 7, 131; Pierce Society Sisters, 268 510, 45 571, 1070; Terrace Thompson, 263 197, 44 15, 68 255; Hague C.I.O., 307 496, 954, 1423; Douglas City Jeannette, 319 157, 63 877, 87 1324. economic Hynes Grimes Packing 337 86, 968, 1231; Cline Frink Dairy 274 445, 681, 71 1146; Hygrade Provision Co. Sherman, 266 497, 141, 402. Judge Clark, dissenting below, said: 'In sum beyond dispute general, universal, custom violation. Now distressing situation, made eyes many worthy citizens required exigencies successful administration. unusual situation. actually clash governmental policies. recurring struggle quite possibly form government. past ways meeting solving problem. Of course forms remedy; continual return when remedies fail equity powers repeated violations law.' 277 F.2d pages 748 749. doctrine involves choice among remedies, orderly management judicial procedures. Doubtless times leave parties their 'at law,' i.e., ordinary proceeding. established

Category: 0