|
|
Mancusi v. Deforte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Mancusi v. Deforte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968)
Mancusi v. DeForte No. 844 Argued April 25, 1968 Decided June 17, 1968 392 U.S. 364
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
The Nassau County District Attorney issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Union of which respondent was an officer calling for the production of certain books and records. The Union refused to comply, and the state officials, without a warrant, seized union records from an office shared by respondent and several other union officials despite the protests of respondent, who was present in the office and had custody of the papers at the time of seizure. The seized materials were admitted at his trial for conspiracy, coercion, and extortion, and he was convicted. The federal District Court denied a writ of habeas corpus, but the Court of Appeals reversed and directed that the writ issue on the ground that respondent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the search and seizure. and that the materials were inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643. Respondent argues for affirmance on this ground alone.
Held:
1. One has standing to object to a search of his office, as well as of his home, and respondent was entitled to expect that records in his custody at his office in union headquarters would not be taken without his permission or that of his union superiors, whether he occupied a "private" office or shared one with other union officials. Respondent thus had standing to object to the admission of the seized papers at his trial. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257. Pp. 367-370.
2. The warrantless search of respondent’s office was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as the subpoena duces tecum, issued by the District Attorney himself, does not qualify as a valid search warrant, and this search comes within no exception to the rule requiring a warrant. Pp. 370-372.
379 F.2d 897, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Mancusi v. Deforte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968) in 392 U.S. 364 392 U.S. 365. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=B8TG1ZQ6QEF344Y.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Mancusi v. Deforte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968), in 392 U.S. 364, page 392 U.S. 365. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=B8TG1ZQ6QEF344Y.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Mancusi v. Deforte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968). cited in 1968, 392 U.S. 364, pp.392 U.S. 365. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=B8TG1ZQ6QEF344Y.
|