Petitioner
Fremont Weeks
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That his house was searched and his papers seized without a search warrant and thus the papers should not be admissible in court as evidence against him.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Martin J. O'Donnell
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Denison, U.S. Assistant Attorney General; John William Davis, U.S. SolicitorGeneral
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day (writing for the Court), Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph Rucker Lamar, Horace Harmon Lurton, Joseph McKenna, MahlonPitney, Willis Van Devanter, Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 February 1914
Decision
Reversed the decision of a district court and held that evidence obtained byunreasonable searches and seizures could not be used against a person in federal court.
Significance
Weeks v. United States marked the creation of the exclusionary rule, which originally stated that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be usedagainst a person in federal court.
Before the decision in Weeks v. United States, the courts admitted illegally seized material as evidence to avoid allowing guilty parties to go free. The rights of the individual were considered less important than the administration of justice. This case marked a turning point in the Court's thinking. With the introduction of the exclusionary rule, the Court devised a way ofenforcing the Fourth Amendment, which prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures. Since evidence seized unlawfully could no longer be used in federalcourt against a defendant, a prosecutor might lose or drop a case for lack ofevidence. Thus, in theory, the police would be careful to obtain search warrants and make sure their searches and seizures were legal.
On 21 December 1911, a police officer arrested Fremont Weeks, without a warrant, at his place of employment. Other police officers went to his house and searched Weeks's room, without a search warrant. The officers seized books, letters, money, papers, stocks, deeds, candies, clothes, and other property, which they turned over to the U.S. marshal. Later the same day, the police returned with the marshal, who seized letters and envelopes found in a drawer. The marshal did not have a search warrant. The material was given to the district attorney. Weeks asked for the return of his property, so the court orderedthose things which were not pertinent to the case to be returned. The district attorney returned some of the property, but kept what was pertinent to thealleged sale of lottery tickets. After the jury had been sworn in, but before any evidence had been given, Weeks asked for the rest of his property to bereturned. The court denied this request. When Weeks's papers were introducedas evidence at the trial, he objected on the ground that the papers had beenobtained without a search warrant and by breaking into his home, violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The court overruled the objection. The lottery tickets and letters regarding the lottery were used as evidence against Weeks.
Great Principles Must Not Be Sacrificed
Justice Day wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court. Day reviewed the history of the Fourth Amendment, noting that it was based on the premise that a man's house was his castle and thus should not be invaded. This feature of the Constitution was written to prevent the kind of general warrants issued by thegovernment in colonial times. Based on the case, Ex parte Jackson, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to letters and sealed packages in the mail.
Day quoted Justice Joseph P. Bradley in Boyd v. United States, "It isnot the breaking of his doors and rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property." Day noted thatthe effect of the Fourth Amendment was to place the courts under limitationsregarding their power. The courts should not sanction the tendency of law enforcement to obtain convictions by using unlawful seizures. It is the duty ofall those in law enforcement to make sure the Fourth Amendment has force.
Day felt that the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment would be useless withoutthe enforcement power of the exclusionary rule. He stated that,
Day summed up his opinion by stating that Weeks's letters were taken and notreturned, in direct violation of his constitutional rights. Day also noted that "the Fourth Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of such officials. Its limitations reach the Federal government and its agencies." Thisstatement meant that the exclusionary rule applied only to the federal government and not to states or cities.
A Personal Right of the Defendant?
The Court's opinion in this case left some points unclarified. Was the exclusionary rule required by the Constitution? Or was the rule the product of theCourt's power to supervise the lower federal courts? Was it subject to negation by Congress? The Weeks opinion seemed to endorse the belief that the exclusionary rule was a personal right of the defendant. More recent decisions dealing with the exclusionary rule favored the belief that the rule was primarily a deterrent against unlawful searches, and not a personal right.
Impact
The Weeks case attracted little notice until Prohibition, when issuessurrounding federal government searches and seizures often arose. In 1961, the Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states, in Mapp v. Ohio. This application became one of the Court's most controversial rulings. It formed part of the "Warren Revolution," lead by Chief Justice Warren. With Warren as its leader, the Supreme Court became the guardian of individualrights, part of which meant restricting the power of government regarding searches and seizures. Under the leadership of Chief Justice Burger, the SupremeCourt leaned in the opposite direction, finding many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Justice William H. Rehnquist led the crusade against the exclusionary rule in the 1980s and 1990s, substantially broadening the exceptions to the rule.
Related Cases
The Silver Platter Doctrine
Weeks in 1914 established not only the exclusionary rule, but also anexception to the exclusionary rule called the "Silver Platter Doctrine." Thisexception covered situations in which federal law-enforcement officers had evidence "handed to them on a silver platter"--Justice Felix Frankfurter's phrase--by state authorities.
The key idea here was the participation of state law-enforcement personnel, who usually worked under less strict requirements regarding search and seizurelaws; if federal authorities became involved, the Court ruled in Byars v.United States (1927)--no matter how slight the degree of involvement--improperly obtained evidence would then have to be subjected to the exclusionary rule.
In its application to criminal cases, the Silver Platter Doctrine had a lifespan of 44 years, until Elkins v. United States (1960). In the meantime, the Court had begun to apply Fourth Amendment principles to the states, and a number of the states themselves had adopted exclusionary rules. But for civil proceedings, the Court held in Janis v. United States (1976), theSilver Platter Doctrine remains valid.
Sources
Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
Fremont Weeks
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That his house was searched and his papers seized without a search warrant and thus the papers should not be admissible in court as evidence against him.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Martin J. O'Donnell
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Denison, U.S. Assistant Attorney General; John William Davis, U.S. SolicitorGeneral
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day (writing for the Court), Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph Rucker Lamar, Horace Harmon Lurton, Joseph McKenna, MahlonPitney, Willis Van Devanter, Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 February 1914
Decision
Reversed the decision of a district court and held that evidence obtained byunreasonable searches and seizures could not be used against a person in federal court.
Significance
Weeks v. United States marked the creation of the exclusionary rule, which originally stated that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be usedagainst a person in federal court.
Before the decision in Weeks v. United States, the courts admitted illegally seized material as evidence to avoid allowing guilty parties to go free. The rights of the individual were considered less important than the administration of justice. This case marked a turning point in the Court's thinking. With the introduction of the exclusionary rule, the Court devised a way ofenforcing the Fourth Amendment, which prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures. Since evidence seized unlawfully could no longer be used in federalcourt against a defendant, a prosecutor might lose or drop a case for lack ofevidence. Thus, in theory, the police would be careful to obtain search warrants and make sure their searches and seizures were legal.
On 21 December 1911, a police officer arrested Fremont Weeks, without a warrant, at his place of employment. Other police officers went to his house and searched Weeks's room, without a search warrant. The officers seized books, letters, money, papers, stocks, deeds, candies, clothes, and other property, which they turned over to the U.S. marshal. Later the same day, the police returned with the marshal, who seized letters and envelopes found in a drawer. The marshal did not have a search warrant. The material was given to the district attorney. Weeks asked for the return of his property, so the court orderedthose things which were not pertinent to the case to be returned. The district attorney returned some of the property, but kept what was pertinent to thealleged sale of lottery tickets. After the jury had been sworn in, but before any evidence had been given, Weeks asked for the rest of his property to bereturned. The court denied this request. When Weeks's papers were introducedas evidence at the trial, he objected on the ground that the papers had beenobtained without a search warrant and by breaking into his home, violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The court overruled the objection. The lottery tickets and letters regarding the lottery were used as evidence against Weeks.
Great Principles Must Not Be Sacrificed
Justice Day wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court. Day reviewed the history of the Fourth Amendment, noting that it was based on the premise that a man's house was his castle and thus should not be invaded. This feature of the Constitution was written to prevent the kind of general warrants issued by thegovernment in colonial times. Based on the case, Ex parte Jackson, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to letters and sealed packages in the mail.
Day quoted Justice Joseph P. Bradley in Boyd v. United States, "It isnot the breaking of his doors and rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property." Day noted thatthe effect of the Fourth Amendment was to place the courts under limitationsregarding their power. The courts should not sanction the tendency of law enforcement to obtain convictions by using unlawful seizures. It is the duty ofall those in law enforcement to make sure the Fourth Amendment has force.
Day felt that the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment would be useless withoutthe enforcement power of the exclusionary rule. He stated that,
If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence . . . the protection of the Fourth Amendment . . . is of no value and .. . might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts . . . are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering.Thus Day placed individual rights before the needs of law enforcement.
Day summed up his opinion by stating that Weeks's letters were taken and notreturned, in direct violation of his constitutional rights. Day also noted that "the Fourth Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of such officials. Its limitations reach the Federal government and its agencies." Thisstatement meant that the exclusionary rule applied only to the federal government and not to states or cities.
A Personal Right of the Defendant?
The Court's opinion in this case left some points unclarified. Was the exclusionary rule required by the Constitution? Or was the rule the product of theCourt's power to supervise the lower federal courts? Was it subject to negation by Congress? The Weeks opinion seemed to endorse the belief that the exclusionary rule was a personal right of the defendant. More recent decisions dealing with the exclusionary rule favored the belief that the rule was primarily a deterrent against unlawful searches, and not a personal right.
Impact
The Weeks case attracted little notice until Prohibition, when issuessurrounding federal government searches and seizures often arose. In 1961, the Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states, in Mapp v. Ohio. This application became one of the Court's most controversial rulings. It formed part of the "Warren Revolution," lead by Chief Justice Warren. With Warren as its leader, the Supreme Court became the guardian of individualrights, part of which meant restricting the power of government regarding searches and seizures. Under the leadership of Chief Justice Burger, the SupremeCourt leaned in the opposite direction, finding many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Justice William H. Rehnquist led the crusade against the exclusionary rule in the 1980s and 1990s, substantially broadening the exceptions to the rule.
Related Cases
- Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877).
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
- Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897).
- Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910).
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
The Silver Platter Doctrine
Weeks in 1914 established not only the exclusionary rule, but also anexception to the exclusionary rule called the "Silver Platter Doctrine." Thisexception covered situations in which federal law-enforcement officers had evidence "handed to them on a silver platter"--Justice Felix Frankfurter's phrase--by state authorities.
The key idea here was the participation of state law-enforcement personnel, who usually worked under less strict requirements regarding search and seizurelaws; if federal authorities became involved, the Court ruled in Byars v.United States (1927)--no matter how slight the degree of involvement--improperly obtained evidence would then have to be subjected to the exclusionary rule.
In its application to criminal cases, the Silver Platter Doctrine had a lifespan of 44 years, until Elkins v. United States (1960). In the meantime, the Court had begun to apply Fourth Amendment principles to the states, and a number of the states themselves had adopted exclusionary rules. But for civil proceedings, the Court held in Janis v. United States (1976), theSilver Platter Doctrine remains valid.
Sources
Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
User Comments Add a comment…