Jeffers v. United States, 187 F. 2d 498 (D. C. Cir. 1950); aff\u27d. __ U. S. __, 20 U. S. L. Week 4011 (Nov. 13, 1951)

Davey, Mary K.

English

bepress Legal Repository

Constitutional Law—Search and Seizure—Evidence Obtained During Search Suppressed

Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law

Buffalo Law Review Volume 1 Number 2 Article 19 12-1-1951 Constitutional Law—Search and Seizure—Evidence Obtained During Search Suppressed Mary K. Davey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview  Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Mary K. Davey, Constitutional Law—Search and Seizure—Evidence Obtained During Search Suppressed, 1 Buff. L. Rev. 196 (1951). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol1/iss2/19 This Recent Decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact lawscholar@buffalo.edu. BUFFALO LAW REVIEWCONSTITUTIONAL LAW-SEARCH AND SEIZURE-EVIDENCE OBTAINEDDURING SEARCH SUPPRESSEDDefendant stored illegally obtained narcotics in his aunt's apartment. Policesearched the apartment without a warrant and seized this contraband. Hold: Theseizure of the narcotics was a violation of defendant's constitutional rights guaran-teed by the Fourth Amendment and the evidence must, therefore, be suppressed.Jeffers v. United.States 187 F. 2d 498 (D. C. Cir. 1950); afld.-U. S.--, 20 U.S. L. Week 4011 (Nov. 13, 1951).The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the peopleto be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonablesearches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but uponprobable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing theplace to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."Warrants must then be obtained unless the circumstances of the search orseizure are for some reason considered exceptional. There are two general areaswhere a warrant is traditionally unnecessary. One is where the search is carriedon as incident to a valid arrest Mc Donald v. U. S. 335 U. S. 451 (1948), Harrisv. U. S., 331 U. S. 145 (1947); the other where there is an emergency with theattendant possibility of the removal of the goods. Carroll v. U. S. 267 U. S. 132(1925), Johnson v. U. S. 333 U. S. 10 (1948). In the principal case there wasno valid arrest, nor were there any grounds for considering the situation one ofemergency.It follows, necessarily, that the search was illegal but does tfiis afford defend-ant the remedy which he asks for? Weeks v. U. S. 232 U. S. 383 (1914) enunci-ated the rule that the standing to object to illegal seizure of evidence was a personalone. This has now become a part of the Fed. R. Crim. P. P. 41 (e) which statesthat it is only the "person aggrieved" who can move to suppress the evidence.Here the defendant claims no ownership in the premises and therefore cannotcomplain of the illegality of the search. The problem was whether he couldcomplain of the illegality of the seizure i.e., did he have ownership of the prop-erty seized?It is provided in 38 Star. 785, 26 U. S. C. A. sec. 2558 (a) (1914) thatnarcotics shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture. 53 Stat. 362, 26 U. S. C. A.sec. 3116 (1935) states that no property rights shall exist in any liquor or propertyintended for use in violating the internal revenue law, but this section also providesthat warrants shall issue for the seizure of such property. This provision for theissuance of a warrant was one indication to the court that the Fourth Amendmentsafeguards apply to contraband seized as well as to other property. As additionalRECENT DECISIONSsupport for defendant's claim, ownership in the government is not established with-out a forfeiture proceeding. 53 Stat 457, 26 U. S. C. A. sec. 3730 (a) (1) and3721; 53 Star. 460, 26 U. S. C. A. sec. 3745 (a) (1939).The dissent cited dictum in Harris v. U. S. supra to the effect "If entry uponthe premises be authorized and the search which follows be valid, there is nothingin the Fourth Amendment which inhibits the seizure by law-enforcement agentsof government property the possession of which is a crime, even though the officersare not aware that such property is on the premises when such search is initiated"as authority for not suppressing the evidence in the principal case. However, inthe Harris case the police had a warrant for the defendant's arrest and the searchwas thus incident to a valid arrest This brings the case within one of the above-mentioned exceptions to the necessity for a search warrant.A more difficult case to reconcile with the present decision is Gibson v. U. S.149 F 2d 381 D. C Cir. (1945). There, as here, a warrantless search was con-ducted on premises in which the defendant claimed no ownership but narcotics ondefendant's person were seized. The court held that this constituted a continuingcrime in the presence of officers. If looked at in conjunction with the present case,a motion for the suppression of evidence will be granted defendant if he claimsownership in narcotics but is not present when they are seized. On the otherhand the motion will be denied if they are on his person.From the point of view of the history and purposes for which the Amendmentwas adopted this decision would appear to be correct The underlying purpose forthe enactment of the Amendment was stated in Boyd v. U. S. 116 U. S. 616(1885) when the court said it is not the breaking of doors that constitutes theoffese, but the invasion of personal security, liberty, and property. In Weeks v.U. S. supra the court stated that praiseworthy as attempts to bring the criminal tojustice are, they are not worth the sacrifice of principles which have been turnedinto fundamental law. Personal liberty appears to be a jealously guarded valueand worth the risk of a few petty criminals being aided through misfeasance oflaw officers.In the instant case it would apparently have been a simple matter to obtaina warrant. Instead the officer entered an apartment illegally and seized a package towhich defendant had, at least, a claim of ownership. The court allowed defend-ant a remedy for this invasion of his privacy. It is submitted that this is morein keeping with the purposes for which the amendment was adopted than thedecision in the Gibson case supra, or the dictum in the Harris case, supra.Mary K. Davey

https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4014&amp;context=buffalolawreview

Constitutional Law—Search and Seizure—Evidence Obtained During Search Suppressed

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law