Court Opinion

ID: 9461773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:24:24.058089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:15.530607
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part):
My concern is with the Court’s discussion of possible defenses available to John Mitchell and various former subordinates of his in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While purporting to leave the question for another appeal, the Court has apparently determined to grant all these defendants a carte blanche mistake of law defense to the civil liability imposed by Title III.1 This important holding is not accompanied by any serious attempt to defend what must remain a significant extension of the isolated cases granting mistake of law defense. The purpose of this concurring opinion is to explain why I would hold that the subordinate FBI of*676ficials do have a defense of mistake of law drawn from established precedent and also hold that John Mitchell does not.
The Court relies on two arguments to support its erosion of the general rule that mistake of law is not a defense.2 The first argument is that such a defense is merely declarative of the common law, as the common law was itself declared in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 456 F.2d 1339, 1347—48 (2d Cir. 1972). However, there is a severe distinction between the case sab judice and Bivens, a distinction central to the common law and which defeats the Court’s argument. In Bivens, the issue pertained to whether the arresting3 officers had, if the true facts were as the officers believed them to be, probable cause or reasonable grounds to make the arrest. While Bivens is more than a little obscure on the issue, it appears that the court there would find the arrest justified if the officers had a reasonable belief (a standard seemingly equal to the standard of probable cause itself) that a crime had been committed and that the arrested person committed it.4 If this is the meaning of Bivens, it is indeed declarative of the mature position of the common law.5 The distinction of our case here is that even if the facts were as the defendants supposed them to be, the search could not be justified as within the law’s intention. The reason for this conclusion is that the search here was conducted for an extensive period without a warrant and is outside of the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement.6 The Court today holds and I concur completely that a warrant is required to justify searches of *677this ilk. The defendants mistakenly believed that no warrant was required. This belief was not based on a misapprehension of salient facts but on an erroneous concept of law — that the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant in so-called “national security” circumstances.
This distinction between the two cases is sensible to the common law which makes a consistent distinction between mistakes of fact and law.7 The distinction is reflected in the law of arrest and false imprisonment. If an officer apprehends an individual on the basis of facts which if true would not constitute an offense known to the law, or on the basis of a warrant suffering from the same defect, that officer is liable in an action for false imprisonment.8 His good faith or reasonable belief that the facts did constitute an offense is not a defense. Such was the harsh principle of the common law. The actions of Mitchell and the other defendants fall clearly within this principle — they are mistakes of law concerning the necessity of a search warrant. Unless we are willing to erode the common law principle, there can be no mistake of law defeñse in the statutory “false arrest” cause of action established by 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (1970), which is, of course the subject of the instant litigation.9
The Court’s second argument is that Congress intended application of the § 2520 cause of action to depend on the “future course of constitutional law” and under Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), a police officer is not to be held liable for a mistaken prediction as to the course of constitutional law. But Pierson v. Ray involved police actions premised on a state statute later declared to be unconstitutional and not police actions premised on their own view as to the correct constitutional command.10 This distinction also informs the common law approach to the problems of arrest and false imprisonment: an arrest made in bona fide reliance on an existing ordinance or state statute is prima facie justified. Here we consider law enforcement actions not taken in reliance on an existing legislative action but rather in reliance on the official’s own interpretation of the law.11 The mistake is thus *678not as to the future course of constitutional law but as to its present command untrammelled by a contrary legislative judgment. The mistake is one of pure law and must be justified, if at all, on that basis and not by reliance on the Pierson principle.
Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) adds little to the court’s argument. In ruling on a sovereign immunity claim, the Court indicated that no immunity existed for violation of a student’s constitutional rights when the violation was caused by “ignorance or disregard of settled, indisputable law . . . .” Id at 1000. This ruling certainly recognizes the force of the rule that mistakes of law do not excuse, as the dissent clearly points up. Its reference to “settled, indisputable law” is made in the context of actions of school board members who did not have available a means for ascertaining any questions of constitutional interpretation that might arise, a means which would insure against liability. The Court’s treatment of Pierson is explicitly limited to that case’s factual predicate — actions taken under a statute later declared to be unconstitutional. Wood v. Strickland does not support the court’s decision here.
To be sure, Pierson involves a limited erosion of the general rule that mistakes of law do not constitute a defense. We may certainly use the principle of that case to make further limited intrusion into the general rule. I recently had occasion to express my views on the proper mode of analysis of this question in United States v. Barker, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 514 F.2d 208 (1975) (Bazelon, C. J. concurring). The holding of that opinion controls the claim of the various subordinate FBI officials and mandates my conclusion that those defendants do have a cognizable mistake of law defense to their actions.12
*679But I do not perceive how any limited erosion of mistake of law doctrine can produce a defense for John Mitchell. He has made the most pure mistake of law imaginable. He relied on no legislative judgment that his actions were permissible or constitutional. He relied on no superior orders or any form of authorization. Furthermore, the reason of the mistake of law rule is surely served by imposition of liability. While I will assume for purposes of this decision that one could make a reasonable constitutional judgment that a warrant was not required in so-called “national security” circumstances,13 it is equally clear that every informed official and certainly the chief law enforcement officer of the Nation would be aware that the matter was not yet settled. Yet no attempt was made to bring this disputed matter to the courts which are given the ultimate task of saying what the law is. The procedure for obtaining such a judicial determination was available to Mr. Mitchell.14 Under these circumstances. *680and with the rights of American citizens in the balance, it was incumbent upon Mr. Mitchell to find out what, the law was, to call to his conscience whether his actions agreed with the constitutional order. When thus viewed, Mitchell’s actions fall directly within the intendment of the rule against mistakes of law: both to assert the primacy of the legislature and the judiciary in the making of law within their constitutional powers and to assert the duty of all citizens to know that law and obey it.15 Former Justice Griffith of the Supreme Court of Mississippi instructs us on the point:16
When a person has been chosen to the high position of sheriff and has assumed the duties thereof which in actual execution so largely deal with the liberties of the people, it will be naturally supposed that he has taken some pains to acquaint himself with the power and authority conferred upon him by law in relation to arrests, and with the limitations thereon as laid down by the law. And when an arrest has been made by him and his deputy, and an imprisonment imposed, and the facts admitted by him show no legal grounds whatever therefor, as is the case here, the jury should be permitted to say whether the conduct of the officers has been characterized by such gross wrong as to evince a wanton or willful disregard of the rights of others, and, if so, to administer a corrective by way of smart money-
The short of the matter is that the Court has by its action permitted the Executive Branch to make constitutional law and intends to overrule that Executive Branch determination only prospectively. I understand the Court in footnote 276 mandates the District Court to consider whether it would have been unreasonable for Mitchell not to have sought a judicial determination of his authority to wiretap without a warrant in so-called “national security” circumstances. But how is the District Court to give proper consideration to the issue? Whether such an action is “reasonable” or “unreasonable” is merely a question of law, viz. should Mitchell’s erroneous view of the law be excused. This is in turn a simple restatement of the issue of the case: should the general rule that mistake of law is not a defense prevail or should it be eroded. Since the body of the Court’s discussion is directed to a proof that a mistake of law should be permitted, if a true national security purpose motivated the taps, the District Court may well find itself more than a little confused.
I recognize that the rule that mistakes of law are not a defense is a harsh rule. Perhaps serious arguments could be presented that it should be abandoned in toto. I might well agree with such arguments. But the Court here neither purports to abandon the rule nor explains why this case is any different from the mass of cases in which mistakes of law have been found to be no justification for illegal activity. I would have trouble enough with a wholesale abandonment of the rule since I do not *681think the law develops in that manner.17 More serious in my mind, however, is the Court’s apparent selective administration of this harsh rule. For these reasons, I dissent from that portion of the Court’s opinion which purports to permit a cognizable defense for John Mitchell to this civil action.

. See 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (1970).

. For statements of the general rule, see United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 563, 91 S.Ct. 1697, 29 L.Ed.2d 178 (1971); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957); Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U.S. 57, 68, 30 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed. 930 (1916); Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246, 257, 27 S.Ct. 600, 51 L.Ed. 1047 (1907) (Holmes, J.); United States v. Gris, 247 F.2d 860, 864 (2d Cir. 1957); Dennis v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 171 F.2d 986, 990-91 (1948), aff’d, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519, 94 L.Ed. 734 (1950); Momsen-Dunnegan-Ryan Co. v. Helvering, 63 App.D.C. 9, 68 F.2d 754 (1933); United States v. Ehrlichman, 376 F.Supp. 29, 35 (D.D.C.1974); United States v. Polizzi, 323 F.Supp. 222, 226 (C.D.Cal.1971); Van Aalten v. Hurley, 176 F.Supp. 851, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1959). It will be noted that the general rule applies both to civil and criminal law. It thus does not matter for purposes of application of the general rule at least that the action authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (1970) is denominated civil in nature. Presumably, a person liable under § 2520 would also be liable under the criminal provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(1970).

. In this opinion, I will presume that the legal principles controlling searches and seizures are identical to the principles controlling arrests. It would seem that the personal interest in freedom from arrest is greater than the interest in freedom from official searches, although both find constitutional roots in the Fourth Amendment. But on the other hand the government interest in the search and seizure circumstance is less than in the arrest circumstance. I use common law authority on arrest and false imprisonment in large part because of an absence of case law on the trespass liability of public officers.

. See 456 F.2d at 1348:
The standard governing police conduct is composed of two elements, the first is subjective and the second is objective. Thus the officer must allege and prove not only that he believed, in good faith, that his conduct was lawful, but also that his belief was reasonable.
If this language is interpreted to mean that even if the facts are as the officer believes them to be and there is still no probable cause in the constitutional sense, the officer is still free from liability, I would question whether Bivens is consistent with the common law position. See, e. g., Laster v. Chaney, 180 Miss. 110, 177 So. 524 (1937); Collyer v. S. H. Kress & Co., 5 Cal.2d 175, 54 P.2d 20, 23 (1936). However, the so-called “objective” standard enunciated in Bivens seems to embrace the standard of probable cause or reasonable ground, if the facts were as the officer perceived them to be. The margin of police error permitted by Bivens is thus that grouped under the concept of mistake of fact.

. See Model Penal Code § 3.09(1) (Tent.Draft No. 8, 1958) and Commentary at 18, 76-77; Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich.L.' Rev. 673 (1924).

. This exception is now codified for wiretapping in 18 U.S.C. § 2518(7) (1970).

. See authorities cited note 2 supra.

. See Winters v. Campbell, 148 W.Va. 710, 137 S.E.2d 188, 196-97 (1964); Donovan v. Guy, 347 Mich. 457, 80 N.W.2d 190, 193 (1957); Larson v. Collins, 195 Mich. 492, 162 N.W. 86 (1917); Williamson v. Glen Alum Coal Co., 72 W.Va. 288, 78 S.E. 94 (1913); Crumpton v. Newman, 12 Ala. 199, 46 Am.Dec. 251 (1847). See also Stine v. Shuttle, 134 Ind.App. 67, 186 N.E.2d 168, 171 (1962); Holmes v. Nester, 81 Ariz. 372, 306 P.2d 290 (1957); Brinkman v. Drolesbaugh, 97 Ohio St. 171, 119 N.E. 451, 454 (1918); State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452, 18 Am.Dec. 118 (1827); 32 Am.Jur.2d § 67, at 129-30 (1967); 35 C.J.S. False Imprisonment § 28b(3), at 671 (1960).

. The same argument, of course, applies to the constitutional cause of action established by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

. See 386 U.S. at 550, 87 S.Ct. 1213. For common law authority supporting this result, see Anno., 16 A.L.R.3d 535 (1967). But see Coleman v. Mitnick, 137 Ind.App. 125, 202 N.E.2d 577 (1964), on rehearing, 203 N.E.2d 834 (Ind.App. 1965) (strict mistake of law principle). Cf. Miller v. Stinnett, 257 F.2d 910 (10th Cir. 1958).

. Compare authorities cited note 10 supra with cases cited note 8 supra. The significance of this distinction lies in its relation to the policies of the mistake of law rule. A legislative judgment as to the validity of a particular measure is accorded great weight in constitutional adjudication and the legislature is generally delegated the highest law-making role in the constitutional order. Constitutional opinions of law enforcement officials are entitled to no such deference. See infra 170 U.S. App.D.C. p. -, 516 F.2d pp. 678-681. See generally Collyer v. S. H. Kress & Co., 5 Cal.2d 175, 54 P.2d 20, 23 (1936).
There is furthermore nothing in 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (1970) which could support an extension of Pierson such as the Court attempts. Section 2520 does grant a defense on the basis of a court order (not relevant to this case) and on the basis of “good faith reliance on . legislative authorization.” As the Court relates, an earlier form of § 2520, in effect when these taps were instituted, provided a defense only for usage of the procedures of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(7) (1970). The reasons for the change *678are not entirely clear but seem to include a desire to protect common carriers from liability for following the orders of law enforcement officials and to declare Pierson v. Ray to be the law in this area. The amendments involved were added on the floor of the Senate by Senator McClellan. His stated purpose was to relieve common carriers of any fear of liability. See 115 Cong.Rec. 37192-93 (1969) (Remarks of Senator McClellan). Both Senator McClellan’s amendments to Title 18 and the District of Columbia Court Reform Act to which those amendments were attached and which enacted the federal wiretapping statutes into law in the District of Columbia contained the change from § 2518(7) to “legislative authorization.” See id. 37183, 37188, 37192-93. The Report on the District of Columbia Court Reform Act sections involved during the debate resulting in Senator McClellan’s amendments (j. e. S.2869) states that certain changes in the language of the Title 18 wiretapping provisions are made to eliminate ambiguities. The Report then cites to a law review article. See S.Rep.No.538, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 18 (1969), citing Blakey & Hancock, A Proposed Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 43 Notre Dame Law. 657 (1968). This article in discussing a proposed draft of an analogue to § 2520 includes the phrase “legislative authorization” and in an accompanying footnote explains that the phrase codifies Pierson. Id., 386 U.S. at 681 n. 57, 87 S.Ct. 1213. Thus, the statutory defenses are no broader than Pierson for law enforcement officials. And as discussed in the text, Pierson exculpates a mistake of law only when there is in fact a legislative approval for the disputed actions. Pierson is not a general abandonment of the mistake of law rule. Certainly nothing in the aforementioned legislative history indicates the slightest intent to alter established doctrine.
The foregoing argument disposes of any contention that a mistaken belief that § 2511(3) authorized warrantless taps could permit exculpation. Such a mistake is one of pure law as is established by United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). And nothing in § 2520 or the common law exculpates pure mistakes of law.

. The center of the reasoning of my Barker opinion is that those who mistakenly believed that their actions were authorized are sufficiently similar to those who are called to the aid of an officer that the mistake of law defense of the latter recognized at common law should be extended to the former. See 514 F.2d page 235 & nn.36-38 of that opinion. For additional authority, see Moyer v. Meier, 205 Okl. 405, 238 P.2d 338 (1951); Anno., 29 A.L.R.2d 825 (1953). Part of the reasoning of the common law “call to aid” rule is, I have suggested, the tenuous relation between mistakes of fact and law in determining a police officer’s authority. A further explanation of the rule lies in various state law provi*679sions which make it a misdemeanor to fail to. aid a legitimate police officer. In the case sub judice, Mitchell’s authority was not as close to a question of fact as was the case in Barker and in the general “call to aid” situation (both of which depend upon the appearance of authority to take an immediate or clandestine action). However, there is more of a legal obligation on the part of employees of the Justice Department to carry out the directives of their superiors when those superiors assure them their actions are legal. I think it would be unrealistic to suppose that-employees of the Justice Department should be forced to choose between termination of employment for refusal to follow directives and maintenance of a correct view of constitutional duties in opposition to the incorrect view of superiors. Civil disobedience within the Department is highly unlikely and we may doubt whether it should be encouraged. Cf. Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 1257, 3 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1959) (reliance on official advice); United States v. Calley, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 534, 541-14 (1973) (superior orders defense). See also Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (reliance on a legislative judgment); James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 221-22, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961), followed in United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 361, 93 S.Ct. 2008, 36 L.Ed.2d 941 (1973) (reliance on a court decision).

. I am not informed as to how one determines whether a constitutional judgment is “reasonable” or not. Does one make such a determination by reference to the position of the interpreter or the number of lawyers in the country who agree with the interpretation? The assumption of reasonableness I make does suggest that in this case the standard of liability under § 2520 is not clear. When the standard of liability is not clear, there is some authority for the proposition that mistakes of law should be permitted. Cf. Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957); Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 100-01, 71 S.Ct. 576, 95 L.Ed. 774 (1951); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 95-97, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945). Furthermore, an ambiguity in application of a criminal statute generally is resolved in favor of the accused. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-48, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971); United States v. Moore, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 505 F.2d 426, 427 (1974), cert. granted, 420 U.S. 924, 95 S.Ct. 1116, 43 L.Ed.2d 392 (1975). Perhaps the combination of these authorities is the true- basis of the Court’s erosion of the rule against mistakes of law. However, as is discussed in note 14 infra, the provisions of § 2520 are saved from uncertainty by the availability of a means of obtaining judicial approval or review of any activity alleged to be constitutional. Furthermore, § 2520 is a civil sanction which operates only through a liquidated damage provision. There is thus less concern with the harshness of the various forms of absolute liability in the law when the sanction lies only in loss of property and not physical incarceration. See United States v. Park, 499 F.2d 839, 840 n.2 (4th Cir. 1974); People ex rel. Price v. Sheffield Farms Co., 225 N.Y. 25, 32-33, 121 N.E. 474, 477 (1918) (Cardozo, J.). Cf. Holdridge v. United States, 282 F.2d 302, 310 (8th Cir. 1960).

. That procedure is embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 2518(7) (1970) which permits a law enforcement official to place a tap and to seek emergency judicial approval. If Mr. Mitchell wished to preserve his contention that no warrant was necessary, he could have so informed the court and argued that no warrant was necessary to continue the tap. If this position were approved, Mitchell would have been protected from liability by the express provisions of § 2520. See note 11 supra. If every judge to which the application were directed refused to uphold Mitchell’s contention, he would have the right to mandamus relief. See United States v. United States District Court, 444 F.2d 651 (6th Cir. 1971), aff’d, 407 U.S. 297, 307 n.3, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). Furthermore, at the time Mitchell placed the taps in' issue in this case on the various lines, he was aware that the Administration’s contentions about warrantless “national security” *680taps were undergoing litigation in a number of forums. The Administration’s contention was a departure from the clear language of the Fourth Amendment and relied largely on past executive practice. Thus, in light of the uncertainty as to the legality of the Administration’s position and the availability of judicial approval to exculpate the law enforcement officials, it seems difficult to argue that mistake of law doctrine should be eroded to exculpate Mitchell at this point.
Further argument for this conclusion may be drawn from the fact that even if § 2518(7) were extended to permit a more lengthy search prior to seeking judicial approval, a failure to seek judicial approval for better than six months is such an unreasonable delay that liability should attach on that basis alone. It is settled that unreasonable delay in bringing an arrestee before a magistrate is the basis for false imprisonment liability even if the arrest itself were justified. 32 Am.Jur.2d § 23, at 89 (1967).

. See United States v. Barker, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 312, at 334-335, 340-341, 514 F.2d 208, at 230-231, 236-237 n.39 (1975) (Bazelon, C. J. concurring) and authorities quoted.

. See United States v. Barker, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 312 at 335-337, 514 F.2d 208 at 231-233 (1975) (Bazelon, C. J. concurring).