WestlawDocument000716.docx

1、WestlawDocument00071689 S.Ct. 1030FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLYPage _394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248(Cite as: 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030) 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.89 S.Ct. 1030FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLYPage _394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248(Cite as: 394

2、U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030) 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.Supreme Court of the United StatesSamuel DESIST et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES.No. 12.Argued Nov. 12, 1968.Decided March 24, 1969.Rehearing Denied May 26, 1969. See 395 U.S. 931, 89 S.Ct. 1766. Defendants were convic

3、ted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring to import and conceal heroin in violation of the federal narcotics laws and on remand from the Court of Appeals to ascertain extent of governments use of electronic equipment in obtaining evidence against def

4、endants, the District Court, 277 F.Supp. 690, found no violation of constitutional rights. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, 384 F.2d 889, affirmed and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Stewart, held that Supreme Court decision overruling cases holding that search and seizure of

5、speech requires some trespass or actual penetration of a particular enclosure is to be applied only to cases in which prosecution seeks to introduce fruits of electronic surveillance conducted after December 18, 1967.Affirmed.Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Fortas dissented.F

6、or dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Fortas see 89 S.Ct. 1048.West Headnotes1 Federal Courts 170B 3146170B Federal Courts 170BXVI Supreme Court 170BXVI(B) Decisions Reviewable 170Bk3144 Particular Cases, Contexts, and Questions 170Bk3146 k. Criminal matters. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 170Bk458, 106k

7、383(1)Certiorari was granted to consider constitutional questions presented by governments use of evidence consisting of tape recordings of conversations made by means of electronic recording device. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.2 Criminal Law 110 392.49(9)110 Criminal Law 110XVII Evidence 110XVII(I) Com

8、petency in General 110k392.1 Wrongfully Obtained Evidence 110k392.49 Evidence on Motions 110k392.49(3) Weight and Sufficiency 110k392.49(9) k. Wiretaps; electronic surveillance. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 110k394.6(4)Evidence supported findings, at hearing to ascertain extent of governments use of e

9、lectronic equipment in obtaining evidence against defendants charged with conspiring to import and conceal heroin, that evidence used against defendants was not tainted by any invasion of their constitutional rights. Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 2(b-e, f), 21 U.S.C.A. 173, 174; U.S.C.A.Cons

10、t. Amend. 4.3 Courts 106 100(1)106 Courts 106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure 106II(H) Effect of Reversal or Overruling 106k100 In General 106k100(1) k. In general; retroactive or prospective operation. Most Cited Cases Criteria guiding resolution of question of retroactivity or nonretr

11、oactivity of decisions expounding new constitutional rules affecting criminal trials implicate the purpose to be served by the new standard, the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of

12、 the new standards.4 Courts 106 100(1)106 Courts 106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure 106II(H) Effect of Reversal or Overruling 106k100 In General 106k100(1) k. In general; retroactive or prospective operation. Most Cited Cases Foremost factor to be considered in determining retroactivit

13、y or nonretroactivity of decisions expounding new constitutional rules affecting criminal trials is the purpose to be served by the new constitutional rule.5 Searches and Seizures 349 23349 Searches and Seizures 349I In General 349k23 k. Fourth Amendment and reasonableness in general. Most Cited Cas

14、es (Formerly 349k7(1)Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.6 Courts 106 100(1)106 Courts 106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure 106II(H) Effect of Reversal or Overruling 106k100 In General 106k100(1) k. In general; retroactive or prospe

15、ctive operation. Most Cited Cases United States Supreme Court decision overruling cases holding that search and seizure of speech requires some trespass or actual penetration of a particular enclosure is not applicable to cases which were pending on direct review when decision was rendered and is to

16、 be applied only to cases in which the prosecution seeks to introduce the fruits of electronic surveillance conducted after December 18, 1967. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.7 Courts 106 100(1)106 Courts 106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure 106II(H) Effect of Reversal or Overruling 106k100 In G

17、eneral 106k100(1) k. In general; retroactive or prospective operation. Most Cited Cases Supreme Court decision overruling cases holding that search and seizure of speech requires some trespass or actual penetration of a particular enclosure was not applicable where eavesdropping by government agents

18、 who placed microphone inside their hotel room against door which opened to airspace on the other side of which was door opening into room occupied by defendants occurred before December 18, 1967. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.*1031 *244 Abraham Glasser, New York City, for petitioners.Francis X. Beytagh,

19、Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent.Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.1 The petitioners were convicted by a jury in the District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring to import and conceal heroin in violation of the federal narcotics laws.FN1 An important pa

20、rt of the Governments*245 evidence consisted of tape recordings of conversations among several of the petitioners in a New York City hotel room. The tapes were made by federal officers in the adjoining room by means of an electronic recording device which did not physically intrude into the petition

21、ers room. FN2 Because there was no trespass or actual intrusion into a constitutionally protected *246 area, the District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected the petitioners argument that this evidence was inadmissible because the eavesdropping had violated their rights under the Fourth Amendmen

22、t. The convictions were affirmed,FN3 and we granted certiorari to consider the constitutional questions thus presented.FN4FN1. 35 Stat. 614, as amended, 21 U.S.C. s 173 provides in pertinent part:It is unlawful to import or bring any narcotic drug into the United States or any territory under its co

23、ntrol or jurisdiction * * *.21 U.S.C. s 174 provides in pertinent part:Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings any narcotic drug into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction, contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates th

24、e transportation, concealment, or sale of any such narcotic drug after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law, or conspires to commit any of such acts in violation of the laws of the United States, shall be imprisoned no

25、t less than five or more than twenty years and, in addition, may be fined not more than $20,000.FN2. The room occupied by the petitioners was separated from that of the agents by two doors with a small air space between them. According to the testimony of the federal agentswhich was properly credite

26、d by both courts below after an exhaustive hearing that included an actual reconstruction of the equipment in the hotel roomthe microphone was taped to the door on their side. The face of the microphone was turned toward the 3/8-inch space between the door and the sill, and a towel was placed over t

27、he microphone and along the bottom of the door in order to minimize interference from sounds in the agents room. A cable was run from the microphone to an amplifier and tape recorder in the bathroom adjoining the agents room.Petitioners contend that this installation was equivalent to a physical pen

28、etration of the petitioners room because the airspace between the doors acted as a sound chamber, thereby facilitating the pickup of the conversations next door. We are unable, however, to distinguish this eavesdropping from that condoned in Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L

29、.Ed. 1322, where the agents simply placed a sensitive receiver against the partition wall. Petitioners reliance on Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734, is misplaced. The heating duct system used as a sound conductor by the agents in that case was an integral part of

30、 the premises occupied by the petitioners, 365 U.S., at 511, 81 S.Ct., at 682 and the agents had to penetrate the petitioners house with a spike microphone before the heating duct could be thus employed.FN3. 384 F.2d 889.FN4. 390 U.S. 943, 88 S.Ct. 1030, 19 L.Ed.2d 1131.*1032 2 Last Term in Katz v.

31、United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, we held that the reach of the Fourth Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure. Id., at 353, 88 S.Ct., at 512. Noting that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, id., at 351, 88 S.Ct., at 511, we overru