Legal Document

381 U.S. 654 85 Supreme Court Reporter 1750 14 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 623 George ANGELET, Petitioner,v.Edward M. FAY, Warden. Number 578. Argued March 11, 1965. Decided June 7, Leon baron Polsky, New York City, for petitioner. Gray Thoron, Ithaca, N.Y., respondent. Michael Juviler, National Dist. Attys' Ass'n, as amicus curiae. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is a companion case to Linkletter versus Walker, 618, 1731, decided this date. Petitioner was convicted in State court 1951 possession narcotics with intent sell. On December 21, 1950, two detectives attached Narcotics Squad City Police Department entered petitioner's apartment by door opened painter who just leaving. They ignored protest petitioner and proceeded, without warrant, search apartment. Upon entering, one officers called an agent Federal Bureau Narcotics. After federal agents arrived local made thorough One found 54 cellophane envelopes, 106 empty capsules, box staples scale. A four packages under hat. Analysis revealed that three packets contained heroin other cocaine. These items were introduced evidence at state trial objection counsel. Nor participation investigation. conviction filed notice appeal Appellate Division but dismissed 1952. 2 In August 1961, after Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081, decided, resorted post-conviction remedies claiming his against him had been illegally seized therefore obtained violation Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. seeking habeas corpus District on same grounds application denied. The judge refused apply retrospectively. Appeals sitting en banc affirmed divided vote. 333 Reporter, 2nd 12. We granted certiorari, 379 815, 126, 13 28 (1964), set argument Linkletter, supra. That answers point retrospective Mapp. 3 However, also contends seizure requires reversal here, citing Rea States, 350 214, 76 292, 100 L.Ed. 233 (1956). cannot agree. invoked supervisory power over law enforcement officer we held latter might be enjoined from appearing purpose offering previously so court. But even if exclusionary rule fashioned bar use agent's testimony absence restraint, would entitled no relief. Such depend upon reasons given supra, not have application. 4 Affirmed. 5 BLACK DOUGLAS reverse judgment stated BLACK's dissenting 640, 1743.

Classification Label: 0