WestlawDocument000716.docx

WestlawDocument000716.docx

《WestlawDocument000716.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《WestlawDocument000716.docx（18页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

WestlawDocument000716

89S.Ct.1030

FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY

Page_

394U.S.244,89S.Ct.1030,22L.Ed.2d248

（Citeas:

394U.S.244,89S.Ct.1030）

©2014ThomsonReuters.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.

89S.Ct.1030

FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY

Page_

394U.S.244,89S.Ct.1030,22L.Ed.2d248

（Citeas:

394U.S.244,89S.Ct.1030）

©2014ThomsonReuters.NoClaimtoOrig.USGov.Works.

SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

SamuelDESISTetal.,Petitioners,

v.

UNITEDSTATES.

No.12.

ArguedNov.12,1968.

DecidedMarch24,1969.

RehearingDeniedMay26,1969.See395U.S.931,89S.Ct.1766.

DefendantswereconvictedintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkofconspiringtoimportandconcealheroininviolationofthefederalnarcoticslawsandonremandfromtheCourtofAppealstoascertainextentofgovernment'suseofelectronicequipmentinobtainingevidenceagainstdefendants,theDistrictCourt,277F.Supp.690,foundnoviolationofconstitutionalrights.Onappeal,theCourtofAppeals,384F.2d889,affirmedandcertiorariwasgranted.TheSupremeCourt,Mr.JusticeStewart,heldthatSupremeCourtdecisionoverrulingcasesholdingthatsearchandseizureofspeechrequiressometrespassoractualpenetrationofaparticularenclosureistobeappliedonlytocasesinwhichprosecutionseekstointroducefruitsofelectronicsurveillanceconductedafterDecember18,1967.

Affirmed.

Mr.JusticeDouglas,Mr.JusticeHarlanandMr.JusticeFortasdissented.

FordissentingopinionbyMr.JusticeFortassee89S.Ct.1048.

WestHeadnotes

[1]FederalCourts170B

3146

170BFederalCourts

    170BXVISupremeCourt

          170BXVI（B）DecisionsReviewable

              170Bk3144ParticularCases,Contexts,andQuestions

                    170Bk3146k.Criminalmatters.MostCitedCases

     （Formerly170Bk458,106k383

（1））

Certiorariwasgrantedtoconsiderconstitutionalquestionspresentedbygovernment'suseofevidenceconsistingoftaperecordingsofconversationsmadebymeansofelectronicrecordingdevice.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.4.

[2]CriminalLaw110

392.49（9）

110CriminalLaw

    110XVIIEvidence

          110XVII（I）CompetencyinGeneral

              110k392.1WrongfullyObtainedEvidence

                    110k392.49EvidenceonMotions

                        110k392.49（3）WeightandSufficiency

                              110k392.49（9）k.Wiretaps;electronicsurveillance.MostCitedCases

     （Formerly110k394.6（4））

Evidencesupportedfindings,athearingtoascertainextentofgovernment'suseofelectronicequipmentinobtainingevidenceagainstdefendantschargedwithconspiringtoimportandconcealheroin,thatevidenceusedagainstdefendantswasnottaintedbyanyinvasionoftheirconstitutionalrights.NarcoticDrugsImportandExportAct,§2（b-e,f）,21U.S.C.A.§§173,174;U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.4.

[3]Courts106

100

（1）

106Courts

    106IIEstablishment,Organization,andProcedure

          106II（H）EffectofReversalorOverruling

              106k100InGeneral

                    106k100

（1）k.Ingeneral;retroactiveorprospectiveoperation.MostCitedCases

Criteriaguidingresolutionofquestionofretroactivityornonretroactivityofdecisionsexpoundingnewconstitutionalrulesaffectingcriminaltrialsimplicatethepurposetobeservedbythenewstandard,theextentofthereliancebylawenforcementauthoritiesontheoldstandards,andtheeffectontheadministrationofjusticeofaretroactiveapplicationofthenewstandards.

[4]Courts106

100

（1）

106Courts

    106IIEstablishment,Organization,andProcedure

          106II（H）EffectofReversalorOverruling

              106k100InGeneral

                    106k100

（1）k.Ingeneral;retroactiveorprospectiveoperation.MostCitedCases

Foremostfactortobeconsideredindeterminingretroactivityornonretroactivityofdecisionsexpoundingnewconstitutionalrulesaffectingcriminaltrialsisthepurposetobeservedbythenewconstitutionalrule.

[5]SearchesandSeizures349

23

349SearchesandSeizures

    349IInGeneral

          349k23k.FourthAmendmentandreasonablenessingeneral.MostCitedCases

     （Formerly349k7

（1））

FourthAmendmentprohibitsonlyunreasonablesearchesandseizures.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.4.

[6]Courts106

100

（1）

106Courts

    106IIEstablishment,Organization,andProcedure

          106II（H）EffectofReversalorOverruling

              106k100InGeneral

                    106k100

（1）k.Ingeneral;retroactiveorprospectiveoperation.MostCitedCases

UnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionoverrulingcasesholdingthatsearchandseizureofspeechrequiressometrespassoractualpenetrationofaparticularenclosureisnotapplicabletocaseswhichwerependingondirectreviewwhendecisionwasrenderedandistobeappliedonlytocasesinwhichtheprosecutionseekstointroducethefruitsofelectronicsurveillanceconductedafterDecember18,1967.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.4.

[7]Courts106

100

（1）

106Courts

    106IIEstablishment,Organization,andProcedure

          106II（H）EffectofReversalorOverruling

              106k100InGeneral

                    106k100

（1）k.Ingeneral;retroactiveorprospectiveoperation.MostCitedCases

SupremeCourtdecisionoverrulingcasesholdingthatsearchandseizureofspeechrequiressometrespassoractualpenetrationofaparticularenclosurewasnotapplicablewhereeavesdroppingbygovernmentagentswhoplacedmicrophoneinsidetheirhotelroomagainstdoorwhichopenedtoairspaceontheothersideofwhichwasdooropeningintoroomoccupiedbydefendantsoccurredbeforeDecember18,1967.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.4.

**1031*244AbrahamGlasser,NewYorkCity,forpetitioners.

FrancisX.Beytagh,Jr.,Cleveland,Ohio,forrespondent.

Mr.JusticeSTEWARTdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.

[1]ThepetitionerswereconvictedbyajuryintheDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkofconspiringtoimportandconcealheroininviolationofthefederalnarcoticslaws.FN1AnimportantpartoftheGovernment's*245evidenceconsistedoftaperecordingsofconversationsamongseveralofthepetitionersinaNewYorkCityhotelroom.Thetapesweremadebyfederalofficersintheadjoiningroombymeansofanelectronicrecordingdevicewhichdidnotphysicallyintrudeintothepetitioners'room.FN2Becausetherewasno‘trespass'or‘actualintrusionintoaconstitutionallyprotected*246area,’theDistrictCourtandtheCourtofAppealsrejectedthepetitioners'argumentthatthisevidencewasinadmissiblebecausetheeavesdroppinghadviolatedtheirrightsundertheFourthAmendment.Theconvictionswereaffirmed,FN3andwegrantedcertioraritoconsidertheconstitutionalquestionsthuspresented.FN4

FN1.35Stat.614,asamended,21U.S.C.s173providesinpertinentpart:

‘ItisunlawfultoimportorbringanynarcoticdrugintotheUnitedStatesoranyterritoryunderitscontrolorjurisdiction***.’

21U.S.C.s174providesinpertinentpart:

‘WhoeverfraudulentlyorknowinglyimportsorbringsanynarcoticdrugintotheUnitedStatesoranyterritoryunderitscontrolorjurisdiction,contrarytolaw,orreceives,conceals,buys,sells,orinanymannerfacilitatesthetransportation,concealment,orsaleofanysuchnarcoticdrugafterbeingimportedorbroughtin,knowingthesametohavebeenimportedorbroughtintotheUnitedStatescontrarytolaw,orconspirestocommitanyofsuchactsinviolationofthelawsoftheUnitedStates,shallbeimprisonednotlessthanfiveormorethantwentyyearsand,inaddition,maybefinednotmorethan$20,000.’

FN2.Theroomoccupiedbythepetitionerswasseparatedfromthatoftheagentsbytwodoorswithasmallairspacebetweenthem.Accordingtothetestimonyofthefederalagents—whichwasproperlycreditedbybothcourtsbelowafteranexhaustivehearingthatincludedanactualreconstructionoftheequipmentinthehotelroom—themicrophonewastapedtothedoorontheirside.Thefaceofthemicrophonewasturnedtowardthe3/8-inchspacebetweenthedoorandthesill,andatowelwasplacedoverthemicrophoneandalongthebottomofthedoorinordertominimizeinterferencefromsoundsintheagents'room.Acablewasrunfromthemicrophonetoanamplifierandtaperecorderinthebathroomadjoiningtheagents'room.

Petitionerscontendthatthisinstallationwasequivalenttoaphysicalpenetrationofthepetitioners'roombecausetheairspacebetweenthedoorsactedasasoundchamber,therebyfacilitatingthepickupoftheconversationsnextdoor.Weareunable,however,todistinguishthiseavesdroppingfromthatcondonedinGoldmanv.UnitedStates,316U.S.129,62S.Ct.993,86L.Ed.1322,wheretheagentssimplyplacedasensitivereceiveragainstthepartitionwall.Petitioners'relianceonSilvermanv.UnitedStates,365U.S.505,81S.Ct.679,5L.Ed.2d734,ismisplaced.Theheatingductsystemusedasasoundconductorbytheagentsinthatcasewas‘anintegralpartofthepremisesoccupiedbythepetitioners,’365U.S.,at511,81S.Ct.,at682andtheagentshadtopenetratethepetitioners'housewitha‘spikemicrophone’beforetheheatingductcouldbethusemployed.

FN3.384F.2d889.

FN4.390U.S.943,88S.Ct.1030,19L.Ed.2d1131.

**1032[2]LastTerminKatzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347,88S.Ct.507,19L.Ed.2d576,weheldthatthereachoftheFourthAmendment‘cannotturnuponthepresenceorabsenceofaphysicalintrusionintoanygivenenclosure.’Id.,at353,88S.Ct.,at512.Notingthatthe‘FourthAmendmentprotectspeople,notplaces,’id.,at351,88S.Ct.,at511,weoverru