Court Opinion

ID: 9423416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:07:37.477626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:44.001021
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
. There are two issues in this case,, relating, to entirely separate events. The first concerns the seizure by the police of á' lawyer’s documents in Pennsylvania from the premises where the lawyer stored them. If we assume that the premises were unlawfully raided by the police, a client’s pápers seized and used against thé client in a criminal prosecution, does the client have standing to move to suppress the evidence? Whether petitioners were clients and Birrell their attorney are questions not fully resolved. But I think they are entitled to a hearing on the issue and on the. legality of the search. I cannot, as of now, believe that if a lawyer-client relation is shown and if the search were held to be illegal, the client is without standing to move for suppression of the evidence. The dimensions of the problem are so great, in the setting of the Fourth Amendment and our enveloping regime of police surveillance, that we should put the case down for argument.. Another issue, mentioned by my Brother Fortas, relates to electronic surveillance conducted in Florida. On that, we should at least remand the case for findings on electronic surveillance as suggested by my Brother Fortas in whose, opinion I concur — without prejudice of course to the search and seizure question.-