Abel v. United States

Last updated
Abel v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 24–25, 1959
Reargued November 9, 1959
Decided March 28, 1960
Full case nameRudolf Ivanovich Abel, alias Mark, alias Collins, alias Goldfus v. United States
Citations362 U.S. 217 ( more )
80 S. Ct. 683; 4 L. Ed. 2d 668
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Abel, 155 F. Supp. 8 (E.D.N.Y. 1957); aff'd, 258 F.2d 485 (2d Cir. 1958); cert. granted, 358 U.S. 813(1958).
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker  · Potter Stewart
Case opinions
MajorityFrankfurter, joined by Clark, Harlan, Whittaker, Stewart
DissentDouglas, joined by Black
DissentBrennan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court case. [1]

Contents

Background

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) suspected Rudolph Abel of being a spy for the Soviet Union. They also suspected him of being in the United States illegally. Rather than arresting him for espionage, the FBI turned over their evidence to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which has a lower threshold for securing arrest warrants. The INS chose to arrest Abel for being in the United States illegally, but agreed to allow the FBI to try to flip Abel into becoming a double agent against the Soviet Union before carrying out the arrest. The INS apprehended Abel in his hotel room and after Abel refused to flip the INS arrested him. Pursuant to the arrest, the INS searched the hotel room. They allowed Abel to take some papers with him and check out of the hotel, and the INS searched those papers later. The INS searches uncovered evidence of Abel using a false identity and engaging in espionage and turned this evidence over to the FBI. After Abel had checked out of the hotel, the FBI searched the room with the consent of the hotel and found additional evidence of espionage. [2] [3]

The evidence turned up by the INS and FBI searches was used in Abel's trial, in which he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Abel, represented by James B. Donovan, appealed to the Supreme Court that the searches violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus the evidence should not have been used at his trial. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari on October 13, 1958, to decide two issues:

After arguments on these issues the Supreme Court could not come to a decision. Thus the case was re-argued to decide the issues reformed as follows:

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court affirmed Abel's conviction in a 5–4 decision. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote the Court opinion, joined by Justices Tom C. Clark, John Harlan, Potter Stewart and Charles Evans Whittaker. [2] While noting that the government must not be permitted to circumvent the Fourth Amendment by invoking an administrative procedure, the Court accepted the lower courts' findings that the FBI's interaction with the INS in this case was in good faith. [2] The Court then found that the INS searches were made pursuant to a valid arrest, and thus the evidence was discovered appropriately. [2] Further, having appropriately uncovered evidence of a crime, it was appropriate for the INS to share that evidence with the FBI, since this merely represented cooperation between two branches of the United States Department of Justice. [2] Finally, after Abel had checked out of the hotel room, it was appropriate for the hotel to give the FBI permission to search the vacated room, and thus the evidence uncovered by the FBI in its own search was valid. [3]

Dissenting opinions

Four Justices dissented from the decision in two separate opinions. [3] Justice William O. Douglas wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Hugo Black, [3] and Justice William Brennan wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Douglas, Black and Chief Justice Earl Warren. [3] The dissenting opinions put forth the view that the evidence was tainted because the FBI did not get a search warrant. [2]

The 2015 Steven Spielberg film Bridge of Spies includes a scene that dramatizes James B. Donovan, portrayed by Tom Hanks, arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

Related Research Articles

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Search and seizure Police power to confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to a crime

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), is a 1969 Supreme Court of the United States case. In Chimel, the Court held that police officers arresting a person at home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but police may search the area within immediate reach of the person. The rule on searches incident to a lawful arrest within the home is now known as the Chimel Rule.

Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the warrantless search of an automobile by the United States Border Patrol without a warrant or probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. The vehicle was stopped and searched for illegal aliens twenty-five miles (40 km) from the Mexican border. The Court approached the search from four views: automobile search, administrative inspection, heavily regulated industry inspection, and border search. As to the validity of the search under the automobile exception, the Court found no justification for the search under the Carroll doctrine because there was no probable cause. As to the validity of the search under various administrative inspection doctrines, the Court found that the officers lacked an area warrant. As to the validity of the heavily regulated industry inspection, the Court found that the doctrine is not applicable to traveling on a state highway. As to the validity of a border search, the Court found that the site of the stop and the entirety of the road on which the stop occurred was too far from the border to be considered a border search.

Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a murder conviction notwithstanding a challenge that the evidence upon which guilt was based was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The court held that in view of the station-house detention upon probable cause, the very limited intrusion of scraping the defendant's fingernails for blood and other material, undertaken to preserve highly evanescent evidence, did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving the Fourth Amendment. It was a criminal case appealed from the California Courts of Appeal after the California Supreme Court denied review. The case extended the situations under which search warrants are required as they reversed a robbery conviction made on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of the holding.

United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976), was a Supreme Court Case that found Max Janis and Morris Levine guilty of illegal bookmaking activities in Los Angeles in a 5-3 ruling. The two were arrested for the crime in November 1968. Appealing on the grounds of unconstitutionally seized evidence, Janis and Levine were heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1973. The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court in 1975, and the two were found guilty in 1976. More importantly, the case established that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil cases where evidence is unconstitutionally seized by a state officer but used by a federal institution.

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody. The majority held that suspects must generally be granted a probable cause determination within 48 hours of arrest. The dissent believed that probable cause hearings should generally be provided much sooner, as soon as the police complete the administrative steps incident to arrest.

People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. In a sting operation conducted by local police, the defendant, Gregory Diaz, was arrested for the sale of the illicit drug ecstasy and his cellphone, containing incriminating evidence, was seized and searched without a warrant. In trial court proceedings, Diaz motioned to suppress the information obtained from his cellphone, which was denied on the grounds that the search of his cellphone was incident to a lawful arrest. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's decision and was later upheld by the California Supreme Court. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court overruled that position in Riley v. California and held that without a warrant, police may not search the digital information on a cellphone that has been seized incident to arrest.

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband.

Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 (1948), was a US Supreme Court decision that ruled that warrantless searches following arrests were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.

Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information (CSLI). The Court held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment. In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable."

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), was decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that limited which claims of Fourth Amendment violations could be made by state prisoners in habeas corpus petitions in federal courts. Specifically, a claim that the exclusionary rule had been broken would be barred if state courts had already given it a full and fair hearing. The decision combined two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day with similar issues, one filed by Lloyd Powell and the other, titled Wolff v. Rice, filed by David Rice.

References

  1. ↑ "Rudolph Ivanovich Abel (Hollow Nickel Case)". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Archived from the original on 2016-01-21. Retrieved 2016-01-06.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kahn, J. "The Case of Colonel Abel" (PDF). Journal of National Security Law and Policy. 5 (263): 263–301. Retrieved 2016-01-07.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 "Abel v. United States, 362 US 217 - Supreme Court 1960". Supreme Court of the United States . Retrieved 2016-01-06.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.