United States v. Thomas A. Paepke

decided is a The issue here lack thereof. one, reversing and in we do

narrow imply that the unlicensed or unau-

intend of law will be practice sanctioned

thorized this circuit.

Therefore, judgment reversed to the trial court cause is remanded judgment to vacate the

with directions the indictment as

conviction and dismiss allege against an

failing to offense

United States. AND

REVERSED REMANDED. America,

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellant, PAEPKE, Defendant-Appellee.

Thomas A.

No. 76-1203. Appeals,

United States Court

Seventh Circuit.

Argued Sept. Feb.

Decided 28", March Amended

386 Crampton, Atty. Gen.,

Scott P. Asst. Powell, Atty., Div., D. Dept, Tax Carleton Justice, Washington, C., plaintiff- D. appellant. Neider, Madison, Wis., ap- E.

Charles pellee. CASTLE, Judge,

Before Senior Circuit TONE, KUNZIG,* Judge, Judge.

KUNZIG, Judge. of first impression

This -case asks the court to determine to what extent the ex- clusionary prohibits rule1 illegal- the use of ly seized evidence tax fraud al- committed some months after the legedly Judge Doyle, seizure. District in the West- Wisconsin, suppressed ern arising from an evidence ap- county authorities. The Government jurisdiction peals, with of the court based (1970).2 3731 upon 18 U.S.C. § * Kunzig Judge appeal Robert L. United States the United lie States shall An sitting by designation. Claims appeals from or order a court decision (sic) suppressing or courts exclud- district See, g., 424 e. Gamer requiring ing the return of seized (1976); 96 S.Ct. 47 Unit proceeding, property a criminal made Janis, U.S. 433, v. ed States S.Ct. 3021 put jeopardy defendant has been after the , Powell, (1976); ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍Stone v. finding the verdict or on an and before indict- 465, 96 information, if United ment (1976); v. United States attorney certifies the district court that the (1974); Harris delay appeal not taken York, v. New proof is a substantial Ohiо, Mapp (1971); proceeding. fact material Weeks appeal in all such shall be cases" taken decision, thirty days judg- after the within L.Ed. 652 and shall or order has been rendered ment prosecuted. diligently part: provides in U.S.C. § 2. 18 April ad- On properly to be an the evidence individ- We hold ual tax return for the year ending taxable missible. return, 1971. This December made and prose- leading this federal Events subscribed under the penalty perjury, County, with Marin California began cution adjusted gross $3,275, listed an income of arresting defendant- Paepke, Arnold allegedly derived “golf from playing.” airport on Sаn Francisco appellee, at return The noted a total tax owing due and arrest, 26,1971. the time of his At October $234, $12,725 stated that had been seized from He was was seized him. on IRS October 27 (sic), and a result of an earlier search up as picked a $12,491. refund of claimed Following re- The Valley, Mill California. house in a return, ceipt the IRS referred the Paepke house connected with of that search to its Intelligence matter Division. activity. illegal drug later, years About two on January arrest, Following the of Califor- State 1974, Paepke submitted another refund prosecute Paеpke to for violation sought nia to the IRS. He claim restated that in 1971 charges The narcotics laws. adjusted had an gross $3,275, he income of however, because the state court dropped, liability a tax again $234. and Once he original search the house (finding the a refund of the requested difference be- and infor- illegal) suppressed all evidence tween the and the amount which $234 had as a result of that search. obtained mation been seized in Obtaining California. no re- $12,- suppressed evidence included the The from request, lief he next filed a civil Paepke. seizеd in suit for refund the United States District for the Western District of Wisconsin charges state were dropped, After March on That Madison, pend- suit is still Paepke back to Wisconsin. went and inactive. ing however, $12,725, was turned over to Internal Revenue which Service imme- The United States then filed criminal diately year Oc- terminated tax in charges in the Western District Wiscon- 1971,3 deficiency a of approx- tober assessed August rise (giving sin to this imately and levied the funds The indictment appeal). charged that 1971, Paepke In December seized. knowingly, penalty Paepke perju- under Court, seeking States Tax to adjusted the United ry, understated his gross income money returned The suit have the to him. 1971 and year misrepresented for its trial, jurisdictional grounds.4 dismissed on to to was source.5 Prior moved pursuant thereupon to 3. The termination was 26 U.S.C. and taxes such shall become im- part: 6851(a)(1) provides payable. mediately § due and Secretary general. or his dele- —If August petition was 4. The dismissed gate taxpayer designs quickly finds that a deficiency not issued a The IRS had depart or from the United States to remove was, time, a Such notice notice. therefrom, property or to conceal himsеlf prerequisite jurisdictional to review the Tax therein, any property or his to do other act Subsequently, Court de- Court. prejudice tending wholly or to render States, Laing v. United cided partly proceedings ineffectual collect the L.Ed.2d 416 That case preceding tax for the current or the income improper IRS held it issue a year proceedings be taxable unless such notice, thereby deficiency denying taxpayer delay, Secretary brought without or his to the Tax Court. 423 U.S. at access period delegate shall declare taxable 183-85, 96 S.Ct. 473. immediately terminated, tаxpayer and such finding shall notice of such and decla- cause statutory basis for the together given taxpayer, with ration to 7206(1) which reads: § U.S.C. payment tax for immediate a demand Any person who— period so declared terminated for the taxable return, Willfully year preceding makes and subscribes taxable and tax for the statement, document, unpaid, or other which con- tax as is of such whether or so much a written tains or is verified declaration allowed law or not the otherwise penalties expired; perjury, filing paying under the the tax has it is made return houses, effeсts, papers, against:unrea him in obtained from suppress all evidence sonable searches and and seizure in California. seizures.”.! illegal search agreed Judge Doyle the evi- p.S, illegally seized dence, been and barred This precludes, thereto, proceed the use in relating including doc- all evidence criminal ing against the victim of an search efforts to re- concerning uments obtained, of all evidence seizure direct arid use in money, from trieve the federal indirectly, the" ly or violation of Fourth trial. fraud See, g., Mapp Ohio, e. Amendment. Judge Doyle’s decision in California is not now (1961); Elkins v. United of Appeals. the Court All contested before 1669 (1960); -the initial parties agree that Weeks is that of the illegal. part is at issue What 58 L.Ed. 652 The “prime barring Judge’s the Governmént order of the “is purpose” rule to deter future relating to the using any evidence police thereby urilawful conduct and effec by Marin County police. the that was guarantee the of the tuate Fourth Arriend This includes: against unreasonable ment searches and sei Calandra, zures.” States v. Documentary Evidence A. 414 U.S. at 94 S.Ct. at 620. complaint 1. Tax Court suit The However, all might . 1971; in December filed in some additional result deterrent to im- 1971; 2. tax return fоr conduct, proper need be excluded. 3. refund claim filed with the The IRS as, the, recently ago, a few months 1974;, January spoké very to this issue: the complaint 4. civil The suit “[DJespite purpose the broad deterrent of in the United Dis- States refund rule, exclusionary the it has never been the Western District trict Court interpreted proscribe the introduction in March of Wisconsin proceed of seized evidence in all as as: well ings persons.” all against Stone v. Powell, Concerning B. Evidence Possession of (1976 ). Money n device, As with remedial the use Paépke’s possession fact of of The exclusionary rule should be restricted on October at the where forward-looking those situations its of seizure.6 objectives thought best served. United Judge entered suppres- The District his Calandra, 26,1976. February sion order on The Unit- Ct. appeal ed filed notice of the same determining In whether remedi day. objectives an.application by al are served of arguments outlining Before of court, the,, rule,, exclusionary must, .as parties, a statement of brief the role of Calandra, in. potential balance the .outlined application determining court in .injury application which can from an occur might be helpful. rule exclusionary promotion of the rule against any Fourth adopted deterring police Amendment freedoms right Fourth. Amendment assure misconduct. su United. States persons, instance, “to secure in their In this ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍pra citizens be and which he does not believe to be true and 6. The the IRS as an was held asset of matter; taxes, every Paepke’s, prepaid material as to correct and was felony also, guilty thereby Paepke’s possession imputed . . shall be a. . December, 31, 1971. potential injury is to self-reporting cute for any improper 3) filing; of tax collection. contends that to allow the Government to use the illegally seized evidence will breed Thus, we must now balance the impor- disrespect the collection methods against of efficient tax collection tance de- IRS. This disrespect will damage a system police misconduct. terrence chiefly based on voluntary cooperation by seeking Judge Doyle’s sup- reversal taxpayers. order, pression Government submits - principal arguments. They 1) We hold for three are: (plaintiff primary purpose appellant). of the exclusionаry (deterring future actions) conclude that Judge .We substantially satisfied the suppres- erred in suppressing the evidence offered of the evidence in sion California nar- by the United States. Two types of evi- 2) prosecution; the erring po- cotics Since were sought dence to be introduced: officers possibly lice could not have fore- documents filed Paepke, and evidence improperly seen seized evidence concerning the possession subsequent used in be would income tax $12,725 on day it was seized. theAs there be in prosecution, actuality, no fаctors examined in deciding that each is effect, and the deterrent different, admissible are the analysis fol- unsatisfied; exclusionary rule lowing separated into two sections. Even, 3) if there were a deterrence resulting an application exclusionary of the rule case, that would be in deterrence mini- A. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE compared with potentially mal the harmful In this section we consider whether the self-reporting effect prevent should tax structure. Government from introducing into evidence argument The Government’s second is four documentary items: two-pronged: post-seizure Pаepke’s admis- complaint 1. The in the Tax Court filed in he possessed sion documents that 1971; in December on October purged the tax 1971; return for contamination; and, in any 3. The refund claim filed with the IRS event, predictable it was not that Paepke 1974; in January allegedly later commit another crime 4. The complaint civil suit return). (false income tax refund filed in United States Dis- counters, seeking affirmance of trict Court for Western District order, Judge’s by urging in of Wisconsin March 1974. accept principal positions, court three question Our focus is on the of whether point virtually mirroring each one of the Paepke’s actions filing in these documents Government’s, 1) in reverse: The purpose with the Government sufficiently purged the exclusionary requires that all the information contained therein of con- illegal evidence derived from the seizure in resulting tamination from the illegal sei- suppressed. Without suppres- California zure in California.7 If the sion, is contamination police sufficient deterrence future achieved; purged by Paepke’s own 2) actions and there misconduct is not The use to strong reasons, are no countervailing now put the Government wants to such which dеterring as predictable evidence was at the future or time of misconduct inflicting great seizure. As all citizens must file income harm to the system, tax returns, it was foreseeable then tax that the documents should be admitted. Government would seek prose- Federal supra. Although Paepke specifically does coun- held that submissions to the Govern- Government, argument sufficiently purge ter this he does ment did not addition, indirectly. Judge illegality so the District the taint of to allow their admission. were prepared by returns the same the District counsel statements The recent him determining represеnted who before helpful in this court. As Columbia Scios, supra, we think that Paepke’s actions: in this fact effect of purging purges any original gives further taint. It deciding important . what [in totality of circumstances shows a purged] has been contamination whether seeking advice, man considering in advance during which the of time an interval consequences action, of a course and testimony of the statement originator voluntarily giving the Government then of what he consequences ponder can Scios, information. United v. certain willingly do it. United then does and Illinois, at see supra supra Brown v. (D.C.Cir. Scios, No. 75-1619 at J., (Powell, 15.8 Op. at 23,1976) Slip Aug. concurring part). case, had over five In the instant Paepke’s argument, to the contrary, consequences of fail- to consider the months that the Government had not shown the seized California ing to state sufficiently purged contamination is not (Assuming, on his tax return. income He convincing. would have the court de income). We think that it was arguendo, that, because the seized money cide purge time to this is sufficient that IRS, immediately turned over to the By compari- seizure.9 from the taint prosecution foreseeable —that he was Scios, a two or three son, the court found confronted with a Hobson’s choice of not period sufficient. United States month failure, filing being prosecuted that Also, Scios, 13-14. filing being prosecuted States, 371 Wong Sun As this was foreseea fraud.10 (1963), 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 471, 83 S.Ct. ble, continues, the he has freely given a confession determined showing burden the evidence is confession the same after days few just a Paepke claims purged. the Govern was admissible. coerced had been showing, has not made this ment and that Illinois, 422 U.S. also, Brown v. See evidence should be excluded the in order to 11, 95 S.Ct. 604 n. future deter misconduct. States, 308 U.S. v. United (1975); Nardone However, even if the Government bears (1939). 266,84 L.Ed. 307 341-42, 60 S.Ct. burden, we feel it has been met. Paepke’s Paepke actions not faced with a Hobson’s conclusion that Our sufficiently have to al- He could stated the as the contamination choice. purged income, tax, paid proper on the the and claimed this evidence does not rest use of low as to its Paepke alone. was assisted the Fifth Amendment source.11 factor counsel. His tax v. United by professional Garner U.S. advised Scios, person’s the court held that the circumstanc- 8. In held that a assertion of the Fifth voluntary testimony separating a witness’s es privilege against self-incrimination Amendment sufficiently purged illegal the the seizure from prosecution violating the barred his federal illegal to the seizure to attached contamination deny occupational wagering the tax statutes because exclusionary application rule. the taxpayer tax returns faced the with “substan- ‘real,’ hazards of tial and [self-]incrimination.” Paepke’s tax return was filed more income 390 U.S. at 88 S.Ct. at 705. The instant pro- months after the state criminal than two type the case involves neither of rеturn nor the January dropped ceedings pervasive designed federal and state scheme to already had realized a the time he filed he So at gamblers single found out con- exclusionary benefit from the substantial trolling in Marchetti. See Garner v. United prosecution on the state rule —freedom 1186; States, supra, at 96 S.Ct. Albertson v. charges. narcotics SACB, authority point for the that he was faced As (1965). choice, Paepke relies on Mar- with a Hobson’s States, 390 U.S. chetti Paepke (defendant-appellee) that still 11. Note (1968). The reliance been due a sizeable have refund. would Marchetti, ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍misplaced. In 1178, 1183-88, also claims that the exclusionary rule re- quires choice of this illustrates that that The existence evidence derived from an authorities, the time must suppressed. at be the local We dis- prosecu- arrest, agree. not foreseen this deterrence have of the ex- Therefore, clusionary does not require no deterrent effect would tion. that all suppressed. evidence be excluding It only the evidence. commands be achieved that evidence which would achieve substan- appear would ac- Thus it tial deterrence be suppressed. Stone v. the Government providing tions in with Powell, supra, at documentary showing pos- that he Calandra, States v. at purges on the date seized sessed 94 S.Ct. 613. original evidence of its contamination.12 first examine whether there think But we must We the substantial deterrence countervailing by the yet required exclusionary factors which should rule was satis fied in case suppression force us to exclude this evidence. United supra. prosecution. evidence in California above, we stated it was not foreseeable to at self-reporting What is issue herе is the arresting local officers that Paepke system of taxation. would have us would, subsequent to the application of the to allow decide that the Government to use California, file an allegedly false seized evidence will breed dis Any income return. tax future deterrent respect for collection methods by suppression effect realized in the instant Bisceglia, United States IRS. See case would be minimal at best. A., summarizing section the court is self-reporting system In order for the to all-important mindful just properly, function there must be choice. He could have listеd reporting, ability truthful but also the income, paid proper tax, reporting. ability assure truthful claimed Fifth Amendment as to its lodged right assure returns honest source. Since rule has prosecute for know never required that all be sup- ing falsification on individual tax returns. pressed, given purging effect of Burger As Chief Justice stated in United Paepke’s actions and balancing poten- Bisceglia: States v. tially great harm self-reporting to the ignore reality naive [I]t system against only marginal deterrent persons attempt some to outwit the gained by evidence, result excluding we . . . [tax] conclude that the documentary evidence at 918. should not have suppressed been by the prevent To of Government’s use these District Court. documents would frustrate the enforcement

process. position To allow would B. EVIDENCE CONCERNING POSSES- deny in effect the existence of information OF SION THE MONEY freely given him the Government for In this section we consider ad purposes. all but refund missibility of evidence showing the fact of however, Paepke, does not rest on possession of the Octo on argument disrespect” his “breed alone. He again ber 1971. We employ the balanc- admission, that We note has excеption Court con- there would be no to the sistently adopt refused to the “but for” test exclusionary rule whatsoever. See Brown v. employed by the If below. Illinois, 590, 603, illegal piece plus mere of an seizure of (1975); Wong Sun v. United through a evidence somehow derived chain of 471, 487-88, 371 U.S. emanating search, illegal causation from the Scios, were sufficient somehow contaminate supra. piece automatically so of evidence bar its both, together than holding years, the evidence with the of Calandra ing test exclusionary rule. prosecution. costs of not barred evidence illegally seized focus is whether 7206(1) (1970). § 26 U.S.C. commission be used can itself concentrate making Both statutes on the tax fraud.13 subsequent of false material declarations as the crimi- of analysis provided Framework provide Both laws penal- nal act. for stiff Court decisions two recent conviction. But important- most ties evidence as illegally the use allow ly, require both laws that the declarant be be proof perjury committed affirmative of his responsibility aware to tell the truth. v. Raft jury grand fore —United by requiring 1623does this 18 U.S.C. that § 1976), (9th and United F.2d 854 Cir. ery, 534 testimony given under oath. The Turk, Cir.), (5th F.2d 654 cert. requires that thе tax law declarations be den. truthful, penalty under of perjury. It is Turk, Raftery and (1976). In both requirement truthfulness both were aware witnesses brings the case now before the statutes testified; both knew that they when within Raftery court and Turk. against not be used them Raftery and Turk involved the affirma- testifying lied in before directly. Yet both use of evidence seized in violation of tive prosecuted. for the juries and grand the Fourth Amendment in a trial for the perjury on the basis of subsequent crime crime of subsequent perjury. case at seized evidence. involves the use of evidence seized in bar exist between the crime parallels Obvious of the Fourth Amendment in a violation grand jury perjury before subsequent trial for the crime of tax avoid- filing a false income return. crime any We fail to discern ance. substantial “False declarations before The crime of between the two situations and difference delineated in 18 jury or court” is grand Raftery hold that arid Turk applicable (1970): § U.S.C. at bar. Cf. to the case Garner v. United any proceed- oath in (a) Whoever under any grand . . . court or ing before knowingly of the United States jury however, contends that Paepke, Raftery any false material declаration makes urges are different. He and Turk that in not more than shall be fined it was not predictable cases those that the than five imprisoned not more would be testify called to before defendants both. years, or Here, juries. to the grand contrary, it was provide any tax laws Similarly, the would file a tax foreseeable who: person foreseeable, argues, As it he return. re- and subscribes Willfully makes should be suppressed on the veri- contains or is . . which turn forward-looking policy - basis that it is declaration fied a written exclusionary rule. penalties perjury, under the made true and dоes not believe to be “foreseeability” which he We have traveled the every material matter as to before, A, correct supra. Paepke Section road prevents type prose- of and, a choice felony upon of a guilty shall being Therefore, thereof, predictable. from shall be fined not cution conviction $5,000, forward-looking policy of the exclusion- imprisoned not more than more method, Paepke throughout misstated his in Section income as to It must be borne mind 13. Judge Doyle type in seeks source and amount. stated B of evidenсe Government what plans opinion, IRS to marshal wants to use its evi- The United States his to introduce. entirely possession only ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍Paepke’s the circumstances dence as to mask facts that show 26, surrounding money arrest or the fact that the sei- 1971. Government on October show, by application the net worth zure occurred. to seeks by suppression methods, would not be served IRS collection ary rule and his claim that requires this case. that all evi- dence derived an illegal seizure be Further, Judge Doyle drew we think that suppressed. Both were refuted in Section York, Harris v. New narrow a rule from too A, supra. Admission will not “breed disre- 222, 91 28 L.Ed.2d 1 U.S. S.Ct. spect” methods, collection IRS but sup- and Walder v. (1972), pression might irreparably damage the (1954), L.Ed. 503 S.Ct. foundation our tax structure —self-re- excluding this The District evidence. porting. Any marginal deterrent effect Harris, following stated that Judge, gained from exclusion is counterbalanced illegally use could not seized protect the need to system. guilt. affirmative evidence of (Although Harris would admit the evidence Paepke’s As to point, second the exclu- impeachment purposes.) sionary rule require does not suppres- evidence, sion of all Stone Powell, v. Court, However, before the only at that evidence which 3048— decision, Judge rendered will achieve substantial deterrence. That broadening a of Harris and foreshadowed has been realized in this case sup- when, Hass,14 Oregon v. it stated: Walder pression of the evidence in the California (v. shield Miranda Ari- provided [T]he prosecution. United States v. Raftery, su- zona, 384 [86 pra also, see Janis, (1966)) perverted not to be 694] 3029-32, testify inconsistently, to license to (1976). perjuriously, even free from the risk of summary, In we conclude in Section B prior confrontation with inconsistеnt ut- showing that evidence the fact (emphasis supplied) terances. possession on the date seized Hass, Oregon v. have should been admitted. alleged His subsequent commission of the crime of fil- Raftery, citing approval,15 Turk with seized ing a false income tax return makes this foreshadowing and added Hass to analogous grand ease jury perjury T-he and Harris. result was the Walder Raftery cases of Further, and Turk. admission primary purpose the exclusionary subsequently perjury.16 committed was substantially satisfied the suppres- agree We with the Circuit’s reason- Ninth sion of evidence in the California narcotics that, ing Raftery and think absent some prosecution. It clearly unforeseeable reason, compelling Raftery requires the ad- erring police officers that evidence concerning in this ease of mission later allegedly separate commit a crime. possession of the mon- Finally, any additional deterrent effect re- ey. possi- It is to an examination of these sulting from the exclusion of the evidence is reasons that we now turn. ble outweighed by necessity preserving further presents two reasons for the self-reporting of the United admitting disrespect the evidence: tax structure. Hass, freely Raftery, alleged testimony given by perjury In place defend- took rights read, grand jury before a federal ant after his Miranda after but suppression of riding seizure and evidence in which he the state before the car in Raftery, v. phone court. United States 534 F.2d reached the station where he was to 1976). (9th lawyer, 857-58 Cir. impeach at trial was held admissible Oregon Hass, his inconsistent statements. Unfortunately Judge Doyle did not have the Raftery. Turk Mandujano, benefit of Turk or was decided cf. United just days prior 1776-77, to the a few issuance of the case, Raftеry District Court order in while two not decided until weeks later. 394 the docu-

Accordingly, we hold both that The illegality of the by Paepke to obtain return of seizure does not ments allow him to commit with showing the the evidence and impunity the new crime of perjury or false possession of Octo- of his fact statement. 26, 1971, The are admissible. order of ber Because the defendant herd did. not have Judge is vacated and the case the District immunity rdturn, when he filed.his United proceed- Court for to the District remanded Turk, 526 (5th Cir.), F.2d 654 cert. opinion. with this not inconsistent ings denied, 823, 429 U.S. 97 S.Ct. 50 REMANDED. AND VACATED (1976), 84 and

Raftery, (9th 534 F.2d 854 1976), Cir. TONE, Judge, concurring. each of which the gave grand defendant jury testimony grant under a immunity, result reаched While I concur precisely point.* do, are not These cases court, result a narrower I reach that however, extend the Walder-Harris-Hass separately my therefore state path and to a doctrine criminal for the views. false-statement offense. defendant was not faced with the balancing approach required by Unit- filing being of either not and pros dilemma ed States v. 94 S.Ct. filing being omission or ecuted 613, 38 L.Ed.2d (1974), 561 is consistent for tax fraud. If the seized prosecuted analysis. with this Inasmuch as “the pri- money was 1971 income he could have in mary, sole, if not the function exсlu- it and declined to state its source if cluded sionary rule is deterrence,” United a statement incriminate States v. such would him. Janis, 428 also, believe, U.S. 96 S.Ct. 3033 n. I have declined to He 34, 49 L.Ed.2d (1976), 1046 even the amount of his income if that there is as little state might to incriminate to be said for the alone have tended need to extend that rule States, him, Walder, of. Garner v. United U.S. facts here as there was in 1178, 1186-1187, Harris, 47 L.Ed.2d 96 S.Ct. or Hass. The rule has already had (1976), Byers, California v. U.S. effect its deterrent when the state criminal 424, 439-442, 29 L.Ed.2d 9 charges resulting from search J., (Harlan, concurring), although (1971) it and seizure are aborted. The social valuе possibility that such a existed in is doubtful further deterrent effect that would charges. view of the dismissal state applying result from the rule to bar the use open The one course was not to de of the evidence to falsity of a to make fendant was a false statement penalties later statement made under the income tax return. perjury conjectural is so attenuated and entitled to weight. to be little theOn other statement, If he did make a false scale, side of the extending the rule ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍as determined, to be he is in the same remains defendant advocates only would nоt have position falsely. as witness who testifies effect, usual truth-suppressing see El- Illegally obtained evidence that would not States, kins v. United admissible, otherwise becomes admissible 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d (1960), but proving falsity for the encourage the under commission statement oath. Walder v. United future crime statement, converting of false thus the rule L.Ed. York, (1954); a “personal right” Harris v. into constitutional New defendant, which, us, Ore- Calandra tells it is Hass, gon v. not.

* Raftery Raftery, suppressed the evidence was due to 534 F.2d at cf. Elkins v. statutory provision 245-249, a violation of a California concerning special requirements night- (1960) (Frankfurter, J., searches, dissenting). the Fourth Amendment.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Thomas A. Paepke

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Mar 28, 1977

Citation: 550 F.2d 385

Docket Number: 76-1203

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.