Document: 395 U.S. 814 89 S.Ct. 2051 23 L.Ed.2d 728 Monique VON CLEEFv.NEW JERSEY. No. 837. Decided June 23, 1969. Herald Price Fahringer, for petitioners. Paul Murphy, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The petitioners were convicted in a New Jersey trial court of conspiring to maintain building purposes lewdness and commit acts lewdness, N.J.Rev.Stat. §§ 2A:98—1, 2A:133—2, 2A:115—1, N.J.S.A.; permitting be used § 2A:133—2(b), possessing with intent utter obscene publications, 2A:115 2, N.J.S.A. Their convictions affirmed by the Superior Court, Appellate Division, 102 N.J.Super. 102, 245 A.2d 495, Supreme Court denied review, 52 N.J. 499, 246 456. make several arguments, but their principal contention is that evidence introduced at was secured violation Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. 2 Petitioner Von Cleef arrested on third floor 16-room house which she petitioner Beard lived. Although no search warrant had been issued, policemen proceeded entire period about three hours. They eventually seized thousand articles, including books, magazines, catalogues, mailing lists, private correspondence (both opened unopened), photographs, drawings, film. petitioners' motion suppress denied, 'a considerable number' items into prosecution 'commented upon witnesses during trial.' N.J.Super., 109, A.2d, 499. 3 attack courts' conclusion seizures described above constitutionally permissible as being incident valid arrest. This challenge would unquestionably well founded if today's decision Chimel v. California, 752, 2034, 685, given retroactive application. But we need not decide here whether should applied retroactively. For even under constitutional standards prevailing before Chimel, see United States Rabinowitz, 339 56, 70 430, 94 L.Ed. 653; Harris States, 331 145, 67 1098, 91 1399, involved invalid. 4 relies primarily supra, this upheld one-room business office seizure 573 stamps forged overprints. Court's opinion Rabinowitz specifically referred factors thought case reasonable: 5 '(1) arrest; (2) place room public, officers, invited; (3) small immediate complete control respondent; (4) did extend beyond unlawful purposes; (5) possession altered crime, just it crime possess burglars' tools, lottery tickets or counterfeit money.' U.S., 64, S.Ct., 434. 6 arrest may our assumed have lawful (the argue not), factual circumstances are otherwise quite different from those Rabinowitz. Even facts supra—in four-room apartment an envelope containing Selective Service documents sustained ground they contemporaneous arrest—are far cry case. While made principles governing searches accompanying arrests unfortunately hazy, 766, 2041 hesitation concluding action police o mbing three-story, top bottom carting away papers, other cannot any view Amendment justified 'incident arrest.' Like 'mass seizure' Kremen 353 346, 77 828, 876, Abel 362 217, 239, 80 683, 697, 668, such simply 'beyond sanction cases.' 347, 829. 7 Accordingly, petition writ certiorari granted, judgment below reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 8 It so ordered. 9 Judgment reversed remanded. 10 Mr. Justice BLACK WHITE concur granting dissent reversal remand without hearing. 11 HARLAN, concurring result. 12 Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced properly distinguished tolerated 1399 (1947). Nor do believe 876 (1957) proscribes search. prohibits seizing contents indiscriminately, considering property take relevant investigation; does bar removal all reasonably considered crime. Division found us engage practice condemned Kremen: '(T)he extensive, reasonable * searched related criminal operation made.' (Emphasis supplied.) Surely, there reason condemn resulting because uncovers abundant wrongdoing. And yet, what today relying 13 Consequently am obliged reach question stricter announced govern case; my view, only applicable legitimately reverse courts. Since reached cases still subject direct review governed 'new' rule law decisions, Desist 394 244, 256, 1030, 1038, 22 248 (1969), join judgment.

Category: 0