*1 рurpose him inside take and then his home outside conducting In- at 820. S., 395 U. search.” a warrantless reasonably as inter- be read precedents more can deed, our entry bar the warrantless preting Fourth Amendment persons solely predicated on the belief of a rеsidence destroy might evidence. knowing premises, arrest, 30S. Louisiana, v. See Vale entry recognized a that warrantless course, have, We Mincey exigent v. permissible Ari circumstance. See in an assuming that But even 385, S. 393 zona, 437 U. provide finding a preserve a basis for could evidence need to policeto exigent to allowthe enter sufficient circumstances v. 384 California, cf. Schmerber warrant, a a home without (1966), surely requires a far U. 770 the Constitution 757, S. exigency showing made than was here: more substantial probable only search, сause to must there have been Not belief,” based on also have been “reasonable there must was immi facts, that the destruction evidence articulable emer further, there must be the assurance that the nent; and entry responsi gency giving rise to the not warrantlеss could bly Rosselli, v. 506 have been avoided. See United States (CA7 1974). appearances F. from 2d 627 Because all entry justified in this case can be neither as a warrantless compelled by exigent an search incident to arrest nor as cir cumstances, and becаuse the court a broad below enunciated exception requirement recognized to the warrant easily decision of this can Court, and which all too become rule,” Rabinowitz, “enthroned into the United States v. (1950) (Frankfurter, dissenting), U. S. J. would grant argument. certiorari and set this case for Stringer. 80-2017. Snead, Sheriff,
No. et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Rehnquist,
Justice with whom Justice and Chief join, dissenting. Justice O’Connor example phenomenon case offers This an instructive is a not uncommon constitutional law. The Constitution involving document, written but cases and controversies its provisions necessarily оpinions result from this Court. opinions aphorisms, Those themselves contain whose resem- *2 grows blance to the actual text of the Constitution increas- ingly they remote as are used as substitutes for the text applied wholly itself, to different situations than that ad- original simply dressеd in case, the or used as convenient justify given my opinion, “catchwords” to In result. that is happened building what has here. Constitutional blocks piled top have been of one another so that the connection original provision between the in the Constitution and thе application particular incomprehensible. in a case is all but (1964),
Massiah v. 201, U. S. re- ground versed the convictionof an accused on the that he had protections [the been denied “the basic Amendment] Sixth against when there was used him at his trial evidence оf his incriminating agents own ately words, which federal had deliber- building
elicited from him.” One
block was used to
(1932),
reach that result. Powell v. Alabama,
of of counsel, at least when an
interrogation
place following
takes
the initiation of criminal
proceedings.1
expanded
But Massiah was further
in Brewer
(1977),
v. Williams,
Respondent testified in his own behalf to the effect during Malone if had asked his brother fulfillhis duties could period by per- the of an absence from the State necessitated problems. allegedly gave respondent per- sonal Malone also paychecks proceeds mission to endorse to his and deliver the jury brother. Thus, as find- the record us, comes to with ing guilty, of an affirmance the of Criminal Alabama Court Appeals, and a denial of of Court certiorari provides jury question guilt Alabama, it so or innocence charges respondent far as But concerned. eventu- wеre ally sought in the United federal habeas relief States District complaint of Alabama. Court for the Northern District His prosecutor there had was the state violated Massiah, supra, supra, more recent case of United Henry, States v. These S. violations testimony alleged were ney to consist of the the District Attor- respondent. at trial about a conversation with Attorney; He was examined an Assistant District over re- spondent’s objection, he testified that had called to re- city quest samples records for use as hand- writing and that the Malone At brothers. this time respondent was under indictment and retained counsel, Mayor city’s still but served as and custodian records. reply Attorney’s request, respondent to the District stated that the records would be available, made but that they unnecessary be would since he had name, as as own, well on the back of the check.2
Ultimately, jury acquitted respondent forgery, Respondent appealed convicted him of embezzlement. Appeals. argued, the Alabama Court of Criminal He part, Attorney’s telephone request that the District for hand- writing exemplars preceded by should have been warnings required in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. argu- Appeals rejected Court Criminal this
2According petitioners, Attorney’s testimony the District relevant *4 as follows:
“I Mayor asked Stringer to, if he willing through would be down records City Hall, at provide there samples me handwriting with of his and Donald handwriting Malone’s and William . . . handwriting. “Q. Mayor What was Stringer’s reply you, please? to “A. He willing give was wel- to me I those He that was records. said come to have whatever records was that wanted he felt like said unnecessary because signed he had William to the back Malone’s name cheek as well as his own. ...” Pet. for Cert. 10-11. 992 telephone concluding call did amount to that the
ment, Stringer interrogation. State, 372 v. So. 2d custodial was a volunteered “the admission It noted that calling question responsе for such an to a not in statement, dismissed the contention The court also Ibid. answer.” Attorney the District invalid because convictionwas imposed obligation the Alabama ethical had violated an Responsibility to contact Code of Professional initiating Assuming attorney call. that before provide obligations occurred, it could ethical a breach of reversing Id., conviction. at 382-383. criminal no basis Finally, that error admission of the court concluded Attorney’s testimony ap- “[T]he harmless. was the District pellant Malone’snamе testified at trial that he William In fact his whole defense was that he had Ma- check. permission sign the check.” at 383. The court lone’s respondent’s conviction, and the Alabama affirmed parte Stringer, Ex Court denied a writ of certiorari. 372 So. 2d
Respondent sought corpus then a writ of in the habeas Al- States Court for the Northern District of opinion, abama. a brief that court issued the writ on ground securing incriminating
“the
of an
a de-
statement from
represented by
fendant who was
counsel after indict-
presence
inment
the absence of
or a
of defense counsel
deprivation
waiver thereof is a
a defendant’s
such
right
to counsel as
in Massiah
described
(1964)].
[377
United the fact
U. S.
Due to
prosecuting
that without the evidence obtained
likely
officialthe State’s case
it is im-
failed,
would have
possible
оbtaining
to conclude that the
of this statement
was harmless error.”
to Pet. for Cert. 6a-7a.
*5
Appeals
Fifth
for the
Circuit
The United
af-
States Court
opin-
in
District
forth
Court’s
firmed for the reasons set
ion.
By process, text of the Sixth a subtle the relevant Amend- prosecutions, provides “[i]n criminal that all ment, which enjoy have the ... Assistance accused shall period in a short of time defence,” Counsel for his has evolved testimony “deliberately through stage excluding a elicited” a isolated from the from defendant who had been services of mandating new trial of one who counsel, to has prosecutor. to a volunteered statement Henry majority As one stated, Member of “Massiah prohibit spontaneous does the introduction statements by governmental that are not action.” elicited atS., concurring). 276 (Powell, J., Rather, “a defendant must government engaged show that conduct consider- that, ing equivalent all of the circumstances, the functional interrogation.” language at 277. The facts and Henry clearly support interpreta- Massiah, They support tion. offer no for the rеsult this case. The federal habeas court also concluded that the admission statement could not have been harmless error. to Pet. for Cert. 7a. This conclusion was squarely contrary to that of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which found that error the аdmission of the Attorney’s testimony was harmless. As “the noted, appellant testified at trial that Malone’s William name to the check. In his whole was that he had fact defense permission sign 2d, the check.” 372 at 383 So. (emphasis supplied). testimony likely It is even less jury’s acquittal influencеd the verdict of re- view of the spondent forgery charge. on the scarcely surprising capable
It is law fewer and fewer yers they may can be found to serve on state benches when ruling find their considered of a decisions overturned *6 as tenuous as these. judge grounds federal district single one more in merely piece grist This case represents, a vivid illustration of the mill, misapplica giant judicial of this Court federal by single tion of the habeas precedent a conclusion habeas court’s ver followed court,3 exclusion оf evidence which sion of our case law required I to be harmless. had found would there system state court in certiorari this case. fore for petition grant Credit Bureau of America, No. 80-2021. United Inc. v. National Relations Board. Labor C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Rehnquist, dissenting.
Justice
(NLRB)
In
case,
this
the National Labor Relations Board
found that
had committed an unfair labor
petitioner
practice
in state
a civil action
court
a dis-
by filing
damages
against
who
filed unfair
labor
charged employee
practices
NLRB.
with the
The NLRB ordered
charges
petitioner
dismiss the state-court action and reimburse the employee
for all
she had incurred in
legal expenses
the law-
defending
suit. Because
believe that
of federalism and
principles
should
the NLRB
Na-
comity
preclude
from
interpreting
Judge
in
District
this case also
initial decision ulti
rendered the
in Beatty
Beatty
mately
v. reversed