Legal Document

399 U.S. 30 90 Supreme Court Reporter 1969 26 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 409 Donald Judge VALE, Appellant,v.State of LOUISIANA. Number 727. Argued March 4, 5, 1970. Decided June 22, Eberhard Pacific KF135 P2 Deutsch, New Orleans, La., for appellant. Louise Korns, appellee. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion Court. 1 The appellant, Vale, was convicted in a Louisiana court on charge possessing heroin and sentenced as multiple offender to 15 years' imprisonment at hard labor. affirmed conviction, rejecting claim that evidence introduced trial product an unlawful search seizure. 252 La. 1056, 215 So.2d 811. We granted Vale's motion proceed forma pauperis, postponed consideration question jurisdiction hearing case merits, limited review search-and-seizure question. 396 U.S 813, 108, 24 65.* 2 adduced pretrial suppress showed April 24, 1967, officers two warrants arrest having information he residing specified address proceeded there unmarked car set up surveillance house. what then took place summarized by follows: 3 'After approximately minutes observed green 1958 Chevrolet drive sound horn after backing into parking place, again blew horn. At this juncture who well known Officer Brady arrested him twice previous month, seen coming out house walk passenger side where had close brief conversation with driver; looking down street returned inside Within few reappeared porch, cautiously looked before proceeding Chevrolet, leaning through window. From were convinced narcotics sale taken place. They their immediately drove toward they reached within three cars lengths from accused, (Donald Vale) and, obviously recognizing officers, turned around, walking quickly same time driver started make his get away when blocked police vehicle. promptly alighted car, whereupon Officers Soule Laumann called Vale stop front steps house, telling under arrest. time, seeing Arizzio Saucier, whom knew be narcotic addict, something hurriedly mouth, placed joined co-officers. Because transaction just they, informed going thereupon advised constitutional rights. After all entered room, made cursory inspection ascertain if anyone else present about Mrs. James mother brother home carrying groceries impending search.' 1067—1068, So.2d, 815. (Footnote omitted.) 4 rear bedroom revealed quantity narcotics. 5 held did not violate Fourth Amendment because it occurred 'in immediate vicinity arrest' 'substantially contemporaneous therewith * *.' 1070, 816. cannot agree. Updated: January Term Chimel versus California, 395 752, 89 2034, 23 685, we dwelling is sought justified incident lawful arrest, must constitutionally confined area arrestee's reach 'the which might gain possession weapon or destructible evidence.' U.S., 763, 2040. But even accorded retroactive effect—a do now express opinion—no precedent can sustain validity us. 6 A may "only substantially arrest." Shipley 818, 819, 2053, 732; Stoner 376 483, 486, 84 889, 891, 11 856. If upheld take cf. Agnello States, 269 20, 32, 46 6, 70 L.Ed. 145, somewhere outside—whether blocks away, Louisiana, 382 36, 86 151, 30, twenty feet supra, sidewalk near steps. 'Belief, however founded, article concealed furnishes no justification without warrant.' 33, 6. That basic rule 'has never been questioned Court.' 487 n. 892. 7 thought independently supportable involved narcotics, are easily removed, hidden, destroyed. It would unreasonable, concluded, 'to require facts first secure warrant searching premises, essence inasmuch know whether premises searched could very destroy Such rationale apply case, since own account arresting satisfied themselves one premises. entirely apart point, our past decisions clear only 'a specifically established well-delineated' situations, Katz 389 347, 357, 88 507, 19 576, warrantless withstand scrutiny, though authorities have probable cause conduct it. burden rests State show existence such exceptional situation. 762, 2039; Jeffers, 342 48, 51, 72 93, 95, 96 59; McDonald 335 451, 456, 69 191, 193, 93 153. And record us discloses none. 8 There suggestion consented search. Cf. Zap 328 624, 628, 66 1277, 1279, 1477. responding emergency. 52, 95; 454, 192. hot pursuit fleeing felon. Warden Hayden, 387 294, 298—299, 87 1642, 1645—1646, 18 782; Chapman 365 610, 615, 81 776, 779, 828; Johnson 333 10, 15, 68 367, 369, 92 436. goods ultimately seized process destruction. Schmerber 384 757, 770—771, 1826, 1835—1836, 16 908; supra; 455, 193. Nor removed jurisdiction. supra. 9 able procure also found him. thus reason, so far anything appears, suppose impracticable them obtain well. 454—455, 192—193; Trupiano 334 699, 705—706, 1229, 1232—1233, 1663; Taylor 286 1, 52 466, 467, 76 928; Go-Bart Importing company 282 344, 358, 51 153, 158, 75 374; Carroll 267 132, 156, 45 280, 286, 543; Ker 374 23, 42, 83 1623, 10 726 (opinion Clark, J.). decline hold provide its 'exigent circumstance' justify courts committed error admitting fruits illegal 2054; 37, 151; 30—34, 1628—1630; Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 1684, 1081. Accordingly, judgment reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. Reversed remanded. 12 BLACKMUN part decision case. 13 BLACK, THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 14 Constitution prohibits 'unreasonable searches.'* has absolute requirement proper Searches, warrant, judged reasonable, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions said, speaking Preston 364, 366—367, 881, 882—883, 777 (1964), common sense dictates reasonableness varies circumstances See, e.g., Henry 361 98, 80 168, 134 (1959); Brinegar 338 160, 1302, 1879 (1949). action here reasonable but failure unreasonable. 811, With view am complete agreement, following reasons. police, watching mother's short distance away. Not long began vigil arrived, sounded horn, backed space out, instead honked again. month against indictment offense pending, came talked car. conclusion both ways, street, went back When stopped stood, testified, '(l)ooking forth like see neighborhood.' He walked leaned in. behavior taking moment. parked men saw attempted pull brought parties stop. addict. apparently swallowed Saucier 17 point believe engaged transfer, supply conversation, emerged furtively bearing readily deduce hurried police. observing surely alerted stocks contraband believed left there. already swallow given Believing some destroyed other be, faced choice risking destruction entering conducting say Delay order accomplice needed. did, fact, others attested actions upon door open Vale. once checked small determine present. Just discovered empty, however, arrived. Now suspicion became certainty: relatives To abandoned officers. As White dissenting 775, 685 (1969): 'For while seize still considered unreasonable.' 20 In my view, should determined each 34—36, 1630—1631, (1963); Rabinowitz, 339 56, 63—64, 430, 434, 94 653 (1950). For reasons above yet crossed threshold headed. 21 Moreover, sufficiently search, strictly 'incidental' recognizes searches prevent removal 153 (1948); 543 (1925). Whether 'exceptional circumstances' justifying exist here, quite distinct valid See 59 (1951); 436 (1948). unnecessary either pre-Chimel standard interpreted 732 (1969). necessary find that, spot visible inside, 22 Court, finds First, suggests destruction.' None cases cited supports proposition begun. On contrary implied those 'evidence threatened 369 (emphasis added). 828 (1961); Hernandez 353 Federal Reporter, 2nd 624 (C.A.9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 1008, 1972, 1021 (1966). Second, seems argue unreasonable warrant. agree opportunity factors weighed determining reasonableness. 1663 66, 435 (Black, J., dissenting). conclusively shows here. noted above, felony necessary. events prudent leave asserts, obtained 'no reason well.' difficulty rely heavily issued any misconduct Vale's; bond increased earlier pending increased. nothing indicate absent bond, much less Probable arose activity around 25 suggest arrests necessarily basis more than mere use base operations commercial business, attempt return apparent man dealing. Furthermore arrival plainly every someone likely postponed. This raises most graphically how does policeman protect allowing seeks Court's answer makes unnecessarily difficult conviction prey society. Notice Appeal, asserted affirming relied state statute, Article 225 Code Criminal Procedure (1967), provides pertinent part: 'A peace officer making shall person weapons incriminating articles person.' Although referred statute course opinion, understand grounded statute. therefore dismiss appeal treat papers petition certiorari, hereby granted. 28 KF62 § 2103. says: 'The right people persons, houses, papers, effects, seizures, violated, Warrants issue, cause, supported Oath affirmation, particularly describing searched, persons things seized.'

Classification Label: 0