Court Opinion

ID: 9424187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:10:42.799388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:48.699607
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Black,
with whom The Chief Justice and Me. Justice Stewaet join,
dissenting.
Petitioner brought proceedings under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the return of liquor seized by federal agents. One of those rules provides that “[a] *80person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the district court ... for the return of the property ... so obtained on the ground that (1) the property was illegally seized without warrant . . . Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (e). (Emphasis added.) As I read that provision, it requires petitioner to show that the seizure in this case was illegal, either because it violated the Fourth Amendment, or because it was in violation of some law passed by Congress. In my opinion neither requirement has been met and therefore petitioner is not entitled to a return of the seized liquor.
There can be no doubt that places that sell liquor to the public have historically been subjected to strict governmental scrutiny for many centuries both in this country and in England. The Court sets out a little of the history of that regulation in its opinion. I therefore agree that there is nothing unreasonable, as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment, in permitting officers to go into an establishment that provides alcoholic beverages to the public, and upon finding something that indicates a flagrant violation of the law to pursue their examination to see whether a violation is actually occurring. The officers did just that in this case, and I see no reason on earth why any man should hold that conduct unreasonable. This Court certainly should not prevent faithful officers, when they see the law being violated practically before their very eyes, from taking the steps necessary to stop and prove that violation.
The majority, far from finding this search unreasonable and therefore illegal under the Fourth Amendment, holds only that it was not authorized by 26 U. S. C. §§ 5146 (b), 7606 (a),1 and that therefore the liquor must be returned. While these statutes do not in express terms authorize forcible breaking and entering to seize liquor kept in *81violation of federal law, it is perfectly clear that they do not in express terms declare such seizure illegal, and in my opinion those provisions impliedly authorize exactly the type of official conduct involved here. I am confident that when Congress said that federal liquor agents could search without a warrant and further provided for fines if the owner refused to permit such a search,2 it also intended to authorize forcible entry and seizure if that became necessary. I do not think Congress needed to speak any more clearly than it already has. Since I cannot conclude that this search and seizure was illegal under either the Fourth Amendment or any Act of Congress, but was to the contrary carried out pursuant to congressional authorization, I would affirm the judgment below and hold that petitioner was not entitled to a return of the liquor.

 Set forth ante, at 73 nn. 1,2.

 26 U. S. C. § 7342, ante, at 74.