Court Opinion

ID: 9423574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:08:18.39957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:44.941684
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Fortas,
concurring.
The dissent written by my Brother White, with whom my Brothers Harlan and Stewart join, impels me to add this note. I agree with the Court’s action in dismissing the writ of certiorari for having been improvidently granted because the record is not adequate for disposition of the case in terms of its constitutional problems. Mr. Justice White’s opinion is not in disagreement on this point. He would remand the case for a purpose which seems to me to be unreal: that is, to hold an inquiry, almost 10 years after the event, as to “whether Officer Rufo could have believed that the *562bag had been abandoned and whether the bag was searched before or after guns were observed.” This inquiry — at this late date — is as elusive as an attempt to capture last night’s moonbeam.
As some of my colleagues have often said, we do not sit as a court of criminal appeals to review judgments of state courts. The question in the instant case comes here as a result of federal habeas corpus proceedings. We should consider it if, and only if, we should and can dispose of it on its record in terms of constitutional principle. The Court’s disposition of this case is based upon the sound premise that we should not use our certiorari jurisdiction to express our views on a point in a case which we cannot dispose of because of inadequacies of the record which cannot realistically be remedied.
1 should not ordinarily feel it necessary to file a comment in this vein. In the present situation, I am troubled lest my Brother White’s dissent should give the impression that only he and my Brothers Harlan and Stewart believe that the court below erred in relying on its inferences as to the undisclosed intent of the officers. I agree with the Court’s disposition of this case, not because I disagree with the position stated in the dissent on this issue, but because oral argument and detailed consideration of the case after certiorari was granted disclosed the infirmity of the record which precludes the orderly disposition of the case by this Court.