Legal Document

342 U.S. 48 72 Supreme Court Reporter 93 96 L.Ed. 59 UNITED STATESv.JEFFERS. Number 3. Argued Oct. 15, 1951. Decided Nov. 13, Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. T. Emmett McKenzie, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Here we are faced with troublesome questions as to exclusion from evidence, on motion accused, contraband narcotics claimed by him which were seized premises other persons in course a search without warrant. On basis narcotics, respondent here, was convicted violation laws, 26 United States Code KF62 § 2553(a), Annotated KF65 U5 and 21 174, 174.1 Prior trial District had denied respondent's suppress, evidence at trial, property seized. The Appeals reversed conviction divided court, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 187 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 498. Since determination question is important administration criminal justice, brought case here. 340 951, 71 570, 95 685. 2 showed that one Roberts came Dunbar Hotel Columbia Monday, September 12, 1949, about 3 p.m., sought out house detective, Scott, offered $500 let into room hotel occupied two aunts, Misses Jeffries. told Scott 'some stuff stashed' room. detective call back later evening he would see it. He then immediately reported incident Lieut. Karper, charge squad Metropolitan Police, who 4 p.m. Karper went When there no answer their knock door officers assistant manager obtained key Although neither officer either or an arrest warrant they unlocked door, entered and, absence Jeffries well respondent, proceeded conduct detailed thereof. top shelf closet discovered pasteboard box containing 19 bottles cocaine, only tax stamps attached, bottle codeine, also stamps. taken Scott's office, where telephoned federal agent upon latter's arrival turned articles over him. Respondent arrested following day charges before us, time ownership It appeared pretrial hearing given room, permission use will, often various purposes. They not store knowledge any so stored. records reflected assigned paid them alone. We agree seizure made Fourth Amendment its fruits should have been excluded his trial. 5 Amendment2 prohibits both unreasonable searches seizures, protection extends 'houses' 'effects.' Over again this has emphasized mandate requires adherence judicial processes. See Weeks versus States, 1914, 232 383, 34 341, 58 652; Agnello 1925, 269 20, 46 4, 70 145. Only valid arrest, Rabinowitz, 1950, 339 56, 430, 94 653, 'exceptional circumstances,' Johnson 1948, 333 10, 68 367, 92 436, may exemption lie, burden those seeking show need it, McDonald 335 451, 456, 69 191, 153. In doing does place unduly oppressive weight law enforcement but merely interposes orderly procedure under aegis impartiality necessary attain beneficent purposes intended. supra. Officers instead obeying too often, shown numerous cases Court, matters own hands invaded security people against seizure. 6 prohibit every entry, warrant, Circumstances might make exceptions certainly implied express such maids, janitors repairmen performance duties. But here Government admits Jeffries, unlawful. even present when conducted; nor exceptional circumstances justify action officers. There violence, movable vehicle involved, imminent destruction, removal, concealment intended be fact, admit could easily prevented destruction removal guarding door. Instead, entering making sole purpose seizing legal authority, intrusion conducted surreptitiously means denounced criminal. 7 argues, however, did invade privacy he, therefore, lacked standing suppress significant act, it says, goods do believe events isolable. Rather bound together purpose—to locate seize are, incapable being untied. To hold lawful permit quibbling distinction overturn principle designed protect fundamental right. unquestionably object unless nature precluded assertion, exclusionary rule, interest therein. 8 urgently contended rights within meaning exist because Congress declared 'no shall exist'3. same contention Trupiano 334 699, 1229, 1663. Brief Pages 24 45. This disposed saying: 'It follows error refuse petitioners' exclude improperly since contrabrand, right returned them.' 710, 1235. 9 section declaring exist' provides issuance warrants 'for seizure' property. Government's view latter provision applies 'when entry must seize'; 'where, after another purpose, eyes enforcing officers.'4 construction Congress, abrogating goods, aid forfeiture thereby prevent spread traffic drugs rather than abolish rule formulated courts furtherance high Amendment. re Fried, Cir., 1947, 161 453. 10 illegally entitled property, suppressed 11 Affirmed. 12 THE CHIEF JUSTICE REED dissent. 13 MINTON took part consideration decision case. unlawful person purchase, sell, dispense, distribute mentioned 2550(a) except original stamped package package; appropriate tax-paid aforesaid prima facie subsection whose possession found; * *.' 2553(a). 'If fraudulently knowingly imports brings narcotic drug territory control jurisdiction, contrary law, assists receives, conceals, buys, sells manner facilitates transportation, concealment, sale imported in, knowing fined more $5,000 imprisoned ten years. Whenever defendant drug, deemed sufficient authorize explains satisfaction jury.' 174. 'The secure persons, houses, papers, effects, violated, Warrants issue, probable cause, supported Oath affirmation, particularly describing searched, things seized.' possess liquor violating provisions part, internal-revenue regulations prescribed used, A issue provided title XI Act June 1917, 40 Statutes-at-Large 228 (U.S.C., Title 18, §§ 611—633) (since superseded Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 41, 18 U.S.C.A.), Nothing limit affect law. disposition subsequent forfeiture, proceeds accordance existing laws hereafter existence relating forfeitures, proceeds, laws.' 3116, 3116. 35—36 (emphasis added).

Classification Label: 0