Legal Document

369 U.S. 121 82 Supreme Court Reporter 654 7 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 614 Mario DI BELLA, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. UNITED America, Petitioner, versus Daniel Judge KOENIG. Nos. 21 and 93. Argued Jan. 16 17, 1962. Decided March 19, Jerome Lewis, Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner in Number 21. Bruce Terris, Washington, D. C., respondent Joseph Pacific KF135 P2 Manners, Miami, Fla., Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 These two cases present variants same problem: appealability an order granting or denying a pre-trial motion to suppress evidentiary use federal criminal trial material allegedly procured through unreasonable search seizure.1 A brief recital procedural history each will place our problem context. 2 On October 15, 1958, warrant was issued by Commissioner Eastern District New York arrest DiBella upon complaint charging unlawful sales narcotics. The executed on 9, 1959, DiBella's apartment, followed seizure drugs, equipment, cash now question. arraigned released under bail next day. June filed his behalf with York, hearing scheduled July 6. Several continuances followed, before held, August 25, indictment against returned district. ultimately denied, without prejudice renewal at trial. 178 F.Supp. 5. Appeals Second Circuit held appealable, accordance its prior decisions, because return indictment. 284 Federal Reporter, 2nd 897. 3 companion case, Koenig, likewise indictment, this time district other than that Koenig had been arrested September 22, Southern Florida basis robbery federally insured bank Ohio. His property seized during court 12, three days after local final Ohio he recommended removal. 16, After hearings motion, entered December 18, suppression but court. Government's appeal Fifth dismissed lack jurisdiction ground that, following recent decisions court, interlocutory case. 290 166. We granted certiorari cases, 365 809, 81 692, 5 690 368 812, 31, 21, respectively, resolve conflict among circuits. 4 settled view Circuit, ruling pre-indictment invariably lays immediate appellate review, it constitutes 'final decision' 28 Code KF62 § 1291, Annotated KF65 U5 even though intervenes, has not squarely passed have denied from orders post-indictment motions both Government, Carroll States, 354 394, 77 1332, 1442, defendant, Cogen 278 221, 49 118, 73 L.Ed. 275. has, however, fact allowed appeals motions,2 these dispositions given rise explanatory dicta lend support rule developed Circuit.3 Not only disagreement circuits dubieties within them demand adjudication based searching consideration such conflicting confused views regarding considerable importance proper administration justice. general principle jurisdiction, derived common law enacted First Congress, requires review nisi prius proceedings await their termination judgment. Judiciary Act, §§ Statutes-at-Large 73, 83, 84, 85 (1789); see McLish Roff, 141 661, 12 35 893. This insistence finality prohibition piecemeal discourage undue litigiousness leaden-footed justice, particularly damaging conduct cases. See Cobbledick 309 323, 324-326, 60 540, 541-542, 87 783. 6 Since aspects deal practical affairs men do constitute abstract system doctrinaire notions, Congress recognized need exceptions certain types where damage error unreviewed judgment is definitive complete, Collins Miller, 252 364, 370, 40 347, 349, 64 616, deemed greater disruption caused intermediate appeal. 30 544, 553 (1898), as amended, 11 47, 47 (bankruptcy proceedings); 1252, 1252 (orders invalidating statutes); 1253, 1253 (injunctions refused statutory three-judge courts); 1292(a)(1)-(4), 1292(a)(1-4) (injunctions, receivership, admiralty, patent infringement). Most recently, Interlocutory Act 72 1770, 1292(b), expanded latitude civil actions device discretionary certification controlling questions law. Note, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 351, 378-379.4 Moreover, concept condition encountered situations which make clear invite self-defeating judicial construction. Thus, acceptance definitively directing transfer property, although accounting remains, Forgay Conrad, How. 201, 404, justified 'review concluded independent of, unaffected by, another litigation happens be entangled.' Radio Station WOW Johnson, 326 120, 126, 65 1475, 1479, 89 2092.5 Similarly, so frustrate right collateral principal touching matters 'affect, * affected decision merits (the) case,' Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 546, 69 1221, 1225, 93 1528, when effect irreparable any subsequent E.g., Stack Boyle, 342 1, 96 3; Swift & company Packers Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, 339 684, 688-689, 70 861, 864, 865, 94 1206. To like Rule 54(b) Rules Civil Procedure which, amended 1961, U.S., 1015, U.S.C.A., allows multiple express entry one more fewer all claims parties,' judge certifies 'there no just reason delay.' 8 Despite to, construction requirement finality, 'the dominant practice.' Moore, Practice (2d ed. 1953), 113. Particularly true prosecutions. See, e. g., Parr 351 513, 518-521, 76 912, 916-917, 100 1377. Every exception addressed either terms necessary operation solely actions. delays disruptions attendant are especially inimical effective fair Sixth Amendment guarantees speedy Criminal counsels 'to secure simplicity procedure, fairness elimination unjustifiable expense delay'; 39(d) 50 assign preference dockets. 9 Again, according advance concluding rested finding particular claim independent, 'fairly severable context larger litigious process.' supra, 689, S.Ct., 865. No severability inheres seeking evidence forthcoming trial; disposition, 223, 119, 'will necessarily determine may vitally affect result.' less precedes presents issue involved part prosecution process issued. 10 precise question us much canvassed lower courts. It produced circuits, provoked difficulties justice expressions dissatisfaction courts sustained Although Fourth Circuits clearly departed Circuit's view,6 consensus others far unwavering.7 example, declined permit pretrial entertainment those explicitly authorized language 41(e). Centracchio Garrity, Cir., 198 382, 386-389 (1952); accord, Benes Canary, 224 470, 472 (C.A.6th Cir. 1955). And In re Fried, 161 453, 465-466 (C.A.2d 1947) (opinions L. Hand Atlantic Hand, JJ.). opinions manifest disinclination treat separate rulings admissibility depend factual contentions appropriately resolved plenary California recently want equity bill suppress, relief would issue, there adequate remedy Ninth application prerogative writs. Rodgers 158 670 (1958); id., 684 note. also Eastus Bradshaw, 788 (C.A.5th 1938). Third up agreed Second, latest subject expresses doubts validity precedents. Murphy, 573, 575 n. (1961). should decide here—we free so—with due regard historic practicalities An does fall class otherwise Court, every recognition. disjointed potential item proceeding, full panoply stay, entails serious trial.8 fortuity instrument harassment, jeopardizing delay availability essential evidence. F.Supp., 673 1. Furthermore, clear, intervention makes truncated presentation admissibility, legality too often cannot truly determined until brought circumstances light. Milburne, 310, 311 (1935); Grant 291 227, 229 (1961).9 Nor considerations made compelling Government later if loss forces dismissal Pack, 247 168 (C.A.3d 1957); Umbriaco 258 625, 626 (C.A.9th 1958). As said circumstance, disadvantaged case adverse Rosenwasser, 145 1018, 156 American Law 1200 (1944). What disadvantage springs policy, over above constitutional protection double jeopardy, denies save expressly statute. Sanges, 144 609, 36 445; Dickinson, 213 92, 102-103, 29 485, 488-489, 53 711; 400-403 9-12, 1336-1338, 1442. expression appears appeal, 1907, 34 1246, 18 3731, confined narrowly defined relevant problem. Allowance further must sought 407-408, 1340-1341. 13 Narcotic Control 1956, 567, 1404, did grant narcotics evidence; but, invited so,10 extend orders. then, bills accomplish extension,11 least reported favorably.12 yet, none adopted. 14 hold, accordingly, mere circumstance transmute ensuing into proceeding begetting purposes appealability. Presentations Commissioner, Go-Bart Importing 282 344, 352-354, 51 153, 156-157, 374, well grand jury, 327, 542, 84 783, parts prosecutorial leading Orders wake interlocutory, then fairly train. When outstanding complaint, detention release arrest, arraignment, information, indictment—in treated 'but step preliminary thereof.' 120. Only way tied esse movant can regarded independent. Ibid.; 404 1338; Brenner, 425 1925). 15 alternative culled some independence rendered different Dier Banton, 262 147, 43 533, 67 915, holding pointed inapposite; bankruptcy permitting delivery bankrupt's papers state prosecuting officials. Cf. Rea 350 214, 292, 233; Wilson Schnettler, 381, 632, 620. There Klapholz, 230 494 (1956), allowing apparently single rather soon thereafter taken counseled declining reasons persuasive appeal: 'This course avoid needless duplication effort provide expeditious resolution controversy besides avoiding risk determining prematurely inadequately follow disposition here might conceivably result defendants, both.' Lester, F.R.D. 30, 31 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1957). 41(e), course, specifically provides making seizure. summary hearing, likely always tentative. think accords most satisfactorily sound interlocutory. vacated cause remanded instructions dismiss 93, affirmed. 17 ordered. Judgment instructions; 19 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK STEWART concur result. 20 WRITTAKER took 41(e) Procedure, provides: 'A person aggrieved move anything obtained (1) illegally warrant, (2) insufficient face, (3) described (4) probable believing existence grounds issued, (5) executed. shall receive motion. If restored unless lawful admissible had. opportunity therefor exist defendant aware discretion entertain hearing.' Perlman 7, 38 417, 62 950; Burdeau McDowell, 256 465, 41 574, 1048. 356, 157, 158, 374. 225, 275; 328-329 6, 543, 783; 403, 1338, addition careful specification orders, since 1789 declared authority 'all writs appropriate aid respective jurisdictions agreeable usages principles law,' 1651, 13, 14, 80, 81; sparingly exercised, suffice, confine inferior exercise prescribed compel duty so.' Roche Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 26, 63 938, 941, 1185. eminent-domain proceedings, reasonable compensation thus separated lawfulness taking, Catlin 324 229, 631, 911; cf. Republic Natural Gas Oklahoma, 334 62, 71-72, 68 972, 978, 92 1212. Circuit: Williams, 227 149 (1955). Zacarias 261 416 Saba 255 (1960). Columbia appear inverted rule: Nelson U.S.App.D.C. 24-26, 208 505, 515—517 (1953), while Cefaratti, 91 297, 202 (1952). But Stephenson, 44, 223 336 385 Chieftain Pontiac Corporation Julian, 209 657, 659 (1954) (by implication). Poller, 911 (1930); 310 Edelson, 83 (1936); Cheng Wai 125 915 (1942); Lagow 159 245 (1946); Reports, 996 (1947); Lapides 215 253 (1954); Russo 241 285 (1957); Carlo 286 841 (1961); Greene 296 Sana Laboratories, 115 717 (1940); Bianco, 189 716, (1951); Sineiro, 190 397 573 470 Seventh Secony Mobil Oil 275 (1960) implication) (semble). Eighth Goodman Lane, 48 32 (1931). Freeman 160 Weldon 196 874, 875 Hoffritz 240 109 (1956). (D.C.S.D.Cal.), mandamus note evident, form availed occasion seek advantages conferred rules governing proceedings. E. 841, 843-844 1961) (extended appeal); 285, 287-288 1957) (expanded discovery). 41(a), codifies practice preferring raised trial, taking disputed issues, usual procedure early stage affidavits alone; addition, long accepted point can, must, renewed preserve ultimate Gouled 298, 312-313, 261, 266, 647; Lawn 355 339, 353-354, 78 311, 319-320, 321. recognize ordinarily Courts wish reserve Illicit Narcotics Traffic—Hearings Subcommittee Improvements Senate Committee Judiciary, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 725-726 (1955); 1956-id., H.R. 9364 S. 3423, (1956); HR. 263 4753, 85th 1721, 86th (1959); 105 Cong.Rec. 6190 (remarks Senator Keating). S.Rep. 1478, 14-17 (1958). 1404 Subcommittee's proposed provided safeguards harassing frivolous ensured review.

Classification Label: 0