Court Opinion

ID: 9423994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:09:50.770899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.584403
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stewart,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice White join,
concurring in the result.
Before the commencement of the trial in this case, the appellant filed a motion to suppress the films as evidence upon the ground that they had been seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The motion was denied, and the films were admitted in evidence at the trial. In affirming the appellant’s conviction, the Georgia Supreme Court specifically determined that the films had been lawfully seized. The appellant correctly contends that this determination was clearly wrong under established principles of constitutional law. But the Court today disregards this preliminary issue in its hurry to move on to newer constitutional frontiers. I cannot so readily overlook the serious inroads upon Fourth Amendment guarantees countenanced in this case by the Georgia courts.
The Fourth Amendment provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The purpose of these clear and precise words was to guarantee to the people of this Nation that they should forever be secure from the general searches and unrestrained seizures that had been a hated hallmark of colonial rule under the notorious writs of. assistance of the British Crown. See Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476, 481. This most basic of Fourth Amendment guarantees was frus*570trated in the present case, I think, in a manner made the more pernicious by its very subtlety. For what happened here was that a search that began as perfectly lawful became the occasion for an unwarranted and unconstitutional seizure of the films.
The state and federal officers gained admission to the appellant's house under the authority of a search warrant issued by a United States Commissioner. The warrant described “the place to be searched” with particularity.1 With like particularity, it described the “things to be seized” — equipment, records, and other material used in or derived from an illegal wagering business.2 And the warrant was issued only after the Commissioner had been apprised of more than adequate probable cause to issue it.3
There can be no doubt, therefore, that the agents were lawfully present in the appellant’s house, lawfully authorized to search for any and all of the items specified in the warrant, and lawfully empowered to seize any such *571items they might find.4 It follows, therefore, that the agents were acting within the authority of the warrant when they proceeded to the appellant’s upstairs bedroom and pulled open the drawers of his desk. But when they found in one of those drawers not gambling material but moving picture films, the warrant gave them no authority to seize the films.
The controlling constitutional principle was stated in two sentences by this Court more than 40 years ago:
“The requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192, 196.
This is not a case where agents in the course of a lawful search came upon contraband, criminal activity, or criminal evidence5 in plain view. For the record makes clear that the contents of the films could not be determined by mere inspection. And this is not a case that presents any questions as to the permissible scope of a search made incident to a lawful arrest. For the appellant had not been arrested when the agents found the films. After finding them, the agents spent some 50 minutes exhibiting them by means of the appellant’s projector in another upstairs room. Only then did the agents return downstairs and arrest the appellant.
Even in the much-criticized case of United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56, the Court emphasized that “ex*572ploratory searches . . . cannot be undertaken by officers with or without a warrant.” Id., at 62. This record presents a bald violation of that basic constitutional rule. To condone what happened here is to invite a government official to use a seemingly precise and legal warrant only as a ticket to get into a man’s home, and, once inside, to launch forth upon unconfined searches and indiscriminate seizures as if armed with all the unbridled and illegal power of a general warrant.
Because the films were seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, they were inadmissible in evidence at the appellant’s trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed.

 “[T]he premises known as 280 Springside Drive, S. E., two story residence with an annex on the main floor constructed of brick and frame, in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia, in the Northern District of Georgia . . .

 “[B]ookmaking records, wagering paraphernalia consisting of bet slips, account sheets, recap sheets, collection sheets, adding machines, money used in or derived from the wagering business, records of purchases, records of real estate and bank transactions, the money for which was derived from the wagering business, and any other property used in the wagering business, which are being used and/or have been used in the operation of a bookmaking business or represent the fruits of a bookmaking business being operated in violation of Sections 4411, 4412 and 7203 IRC of 1954.”

 Before the Commissioner were no less than four lengthy and detailed affidavits, setting out the grounds for the affiants’ reasonable belief that the appellant was engaged in an illegal gambling enterprise, and that the paraphernalia of his trade were concealed in his house.

 The fact that almost no gambling material was actually found has no bearing, of course, upon the validity of the search. The constitutionality of a search depends in no measure upon what it brings to light. Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 29.

 See Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294.