Stanford v. Texas

Last updated
Stanford v. Texas
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 12, 1964
Decided January 18, 1965
Full case nameStanford v. Texas
Citations379 U.S. 476 ( more )
85 S. Ct. 506, 13 L. Ed. 2d 431, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2380
Case history
Prior Cert. granted, 377 U.S. 989(1964).
Holding
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are by the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed against invasion by the States, and the States may not constitutionally issue general warrants which do not describe with particularity the things to be seized, a requirement of the most scrupulous exactitude where the seizure also impinges upon First Amendment freedoms.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinion
MajorityStewart, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It stated in clear terms that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment rules regarding search and seizure applied to state governments. [1] While this principle had been outlined in other cases, such as Mapp v. Ohio , this case added another level of constitutional consideration for the issuance of search warrants when articles of expression, protected by the First Amendment, are among the items to be taken. In effect, when a state issues a warrant that includes the order to seize books, it must accord the "most scrupulous exactitude" to the language of the Fourth Amendment.

Contents

Background

The petitioner, John William Stanford, Jr., operated a mail-order book business, "All Points of View", out of his private residence in San Antonio, Texas. On December 27, 1963, Texas law enforcement officers—several Bexar County deputies and two assistant attorneys general—appeared at Stanford's home with a warrant to search the premises. This warrant had been issued by a local magistrate for the purpose of seizing any books, lists, receipts, pictures, or other such effects related to the Communist Party of Texas, an organization that had been declared unlawful by a piece of Texas legislation known as the "Suppression Act", also known as the Texas Communist Control Law. Among other provisions, the Suppression Act made it illegal to possess writings, recordings or photographs relating to the Communist Party of Texas, each instance of such possession potentially bringing a prison sentence of 20 years.

Stanford was not home at the time officers arrived, but his wife allowed police into the home after being read the warrant. Officers evidently tried to locate Stanford without success before beginning their search. This search lasted around five hours. When the search was completed, officers had, in total, seized approximately 2,000 of Stanford's books, pamphlets, and papers, which were then packed into 14 cartons and sent to an investigator's office in the county courthouse. In the entire collection of seized material, investigators did not find any articles related to the Communist Party of Texas. Many of the seized books had been, in fact, intended for sale in Stanford's home business and included "such diverse writers as Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre, Theodore Draper, Fidel Castro, Earl Browder, Pope John XXIII, and Mr. Justice Hugo Black." [2]

Also among the seized items was an array of Stanford's private documents, insurance policies, personal correspondence, and even his marriage certificate. Due to this fact, and the fact that the investigation had yielded no evidence of criminal activity, Stanford filed a motion with the magistrate who had issued the warrant, requesting that the warrant be annulled and his property be returned. After a hearing, Stanford's motion was denied without further comment from the court. By statute, the decision of the local court was final on this matter, leaving only the supreme court as an avenue of appeal. The court granted certiorari and heard arguments on November 12, 1964. [3]

John Stanford helped organize the San Antonio Committee to Free Angela Davis in the early 1970s and still lives in San Antonio. He was also active for many years in the peace movement and with black communist John Inman of San Antonio. Stanford established relationships with SNCC, the Black Panthers, and other groups active in the San Antonio area.

Opinion of the Court

On January 18, 1965, Justice Potter Stewart delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court. Demonstrating the strength of the agreement among the justices, the court stated that it would not even consider the majority of Stanford's arguments against the warrant, stating it needed just one of his objections to determine that the search had been unconstitutional. Namely, the court found the warrant issued was a general warrant, something that the Fourth Amendment had been created specifically to prevent. Such a warrant required only the reasonable belief of wrongdoing, and granted law enforcement officials considerable leeway in what they were allowed to seize as evidence of a crime. The court quoted Revolutionary War-era figure James Otis; regarding writs of assistance, Otis remarks, "[they are] the worst instrument of arbitrary power ... that ever was found in an English law book... [placing] the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer."

Much of the court's opinion pertains to the history of warrants, and the constitutional interest in preventing warrants that are too broad in scope. Justice Stewart felt it would be a “needless exercise in pedantry to review again the detailed history of the use of general warrants as instruments of oppression from the time of the Tudors, through the Star Chamber, the Long Parliament, the Restoration, and beyond.” [4] Nevertheless, the Court's discussion of this history comprises more than half of the unquoted text of the opinion.

Justice Steward focuses closely on the English Court of King’s Bench case Entick v Carrington (1765), which rejected a search warrant against a bookseller for seditious libel. [5] Calling Lord Camden’s opinion the “wellspring” of the Fourth Amendment, [6] Justice Steward draws the King’s overreach there in close parallel with Texas’s search of John Stanford here. [7]

Near the end of the Court's opinion, it summarizes its purpose in discussing history at such length:

In short, what this history indispensably teaches is that the constitutional requirement that warrants must particularly describe the 'things to be seized' is to be accorded the most scrupulous exactitude when the 'things' are books, and the basis for their seizure is the ideas which they contain.

The magistrate's order was vacated, and the case was remanded to lower court for its final disposition, consistent with the ruling above.

See also

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.

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), was a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle to be searched as well. The appeals court had previously ruled that opening and searching the closed portable containers without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, even though the warrantless vehicle search was permissible due to existing precedent.

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.

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant’s rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated. This decision was later overturned by Katz v. United States in 1967.

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established the "good faith" exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), is a Fourth Amendment case. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States, thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.

The Aguilar–Spinelli test was a judicial guideline set down by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating the validity of a search warrant or a warrantless arrest based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip. The Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar–Spinelli test in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), in favor of a rule that evaluates the reliability of the information under the "totality of the circumstances." However, Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Oregon, and Washington have retained the Aguilar–Spinelli test, based on their own state constitutions.

United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that such warrants, which are issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional and do not need to describe that condition on their face.

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.

Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was credible or his information reliable.” Along with Spinelli v. United States (1969), Aguilar established the Aguilar–Spinelli test, a judicial guideline for evaluating the validity of a search warrant based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip. The test developed in this case was subsequently rejected and replaced in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case from 1978 in which The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, was searched by police after they suspected the paper to be in possession of photographs of a demonstration that took place at the university's hospital in April 1971. The Stanford Daily filed a suit claiming that under the protection of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, the warrants were unconstitutional and that the searches should have fallen under the context of subpoenas. The Supreme Court ruled against The Stanford Daily; however, Congress later passed the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which provides additional protections against searches and seizures to the press and individuals who disseminate information to the public, unless that individual is suspected of a crime or a life-threatening situation is present.

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures. The opinion clarified the plain view doctrine of the Court's Fourth Amendment analysis.

Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler. It held that both Missouri's procedures for the seizure of allegedly obscene material and the execution of the warrant itself violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments' prohibitions on search and seizure without due process. Those violations, in turn, threatened the rights protected by the First Amendment.

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.

Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960), was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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.

Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree". In Murray, the Court ruled that when officers conduct two searches, the first unlawful and the second lawful, evidence seized during the second search is admissible if the second search "is genuinely independent of [the] earlier one."

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.

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."

References

  1. ↑ Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. at 479.
  3. ↑ Stanford v. Texas, Oyez (last visited Feb 7, 2017).
  4. ↑ Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. at 482 fn.6 citing Siebert, Freedom of the Press in England, 1476-1776, pp. 83, 85-86, 97.
  5. ↑ Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. at 483 fn.10 citing Lasson, Development of the Fourth Amendment, p. 43.
  6. ↑ Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. at 484 fn.13 citing Boyd v. United States , 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
  7. ↑ Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. at 483 fn.11 citing Erskine May, Constitutional History of England 246 (Am. ed. 1864).
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.