Petitioner
United States
Respondent
John Calandra
Petitioner's Claim
A witness summoned before a grand jury should not be excused from testifyingbecause the questions are based on evidence gathered during an unlawful search and seizure.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Louis F. Claiborne
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Robert J. Rotatori
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F., Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
8 January 1974
Decision
Reversed the decisions of a district court and court of appeals and held thata grand jury witness may not refuse to answer questions on the grounds thatthey are based on evidence gained through unlawful search and seizure.
Significance
In United States v. Calandra, the Supreme Court made it clear that theexclusionary rule was not a personal constitutional right, but was simply meant as a remedy to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect.
In connection with an extensive investigation into suspected illegal gambling, the police obtained a search warrant for the Royal Machine & Tool Co. in Cleveland, Ohio. This business was owned by John Calandra. The warrant specified that the objects of the search were bookmaking records and wagering paraphernalia. The warrant was based on information from informants to the FBI and surveillance by the FBI. On 15 December 1970, federal agents spent four hours searching the premises. The agents did not find any gambling paraphernalia, but they did find a card indicating that Dr. Walter Loveland was making periodic payments to Calandra. The agents seized the card along with books, records, stock certificates, and address books.
On 1 March 1971, a special grand jury convened in the Northern District of Ohio to investigate possible loan sharking activities. The grand jury subpoenaed Calandra to question him. Their questions were based on the material seizedin the search of his business. On 17 August 1971 Calandra appeared before the grand jury but refused to testify, invoking the Fifth Amendment, which states that people may not be compelled to be a witness against themselves. The government asked the district court to grant Calandra immunity. Calandra got apostponement of the immunity hearing so he could prepare a motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search.
Calandra asked that the evidence be suppressed and returned because the warrant was insufficient and the search went beyond the scope of the warrant. Thedistrict court ordered the evidence suppressed and returned and said that Calandra did not need to answer any grand jury questions based on the suppressedevidence. The court agreed that the search warrant had been issued without probable cause, and the search had exceeded the scope of the warrant. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court. The case next went to the Supreme Court.
Exclusionary Rule's Prime Purpose
Justice Powell wrote the opinion for the majority. A grand jury hearing is aninvestigation to determine if a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should take place. If a grand jury feels that criminal proceedings should occur, it will present to the court an indictment, a written accusation made upon oath. Powell noted that the operation of a grand jury is generally unrestrained by the technical, procedural, and evidentiary rules that are used in criminal trials. An indictment is not subject to a challenge thatthe grand jury acted on inadequate evidence or on information obtained in violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.Powell explained that the exclusionary rule was adopted to guard against unreasonable searches and seizures, which are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.Powell noted that the "rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct." The rule is a remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect, "rather than a personal constitutional rightof the party aggrieved." The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted toforbid the use of illegally seized evidence at all times.
Regarding grand juries and the exclusionary rule, Powell explained that "we must weigh the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury against the potential benefits of the rule." Extending the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings would seriously impede grand juries. Suppression hearings would halt the progress of a grand jury investigation. Extending the exclusionary rule to grand jury evidence would deter police investigation that was directed toward finding evidence only for grand jury use. Since evidence obtained unlawfully would not be admissible in a criminal trial, a prosecutor would probably not ask for an indictment in a case where a conviction could not be gained.
Calandra claimed that the grand jury's questions invaded his privacy and because the questions were based on illegally obtained evidence, they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Powell disagreed. The wrong done to Calandra tookplace during the original search and seizure. Grand jury questions based on evidence from that incident "involve no independent governmental invasion . .. , but rather the usual abridgment of personal privacy common to all grand jury questioning." Grand jury questions based on unlawfully obtained evidenceare only a "derivative use" of that evidence. Powell summed up by stating that the damage to grand juries that would be done by extending the use of the exclusionary rule would outweigh the benefit as a deterrent to police misconduct.
Better For Some Guilty People To Go Free
Justice Brennan wrote the dissent. Brennan indicted that the purpose of the exclusionary rule was "to fashion an enforcement tool to give content and meaning to the Fourth Amendment's guarantees" against unlawful searches and seizures. The rule accomplished the goals of helping the judiciary avoid the taintof partnership in official lawlessness and it assured the people that the government would not profit from its lawless behavior. This would help people trust their government. Brennan accused the majority of the Supreme Court of discounting, "to the point of extinction, the vital function of the rule to insure that the judiciary avoid even the slightest appearance of sanctioning illegal government conduct." The judges who established the rule knew that it implied that it was better for some guilty people to go free than for the police to engage in illegal behavior. Brennan expressed concern that the decisionin the case indicated that a majority of justices wanted to abandon the exclusionary rule altogether in search and seizure cases. Brennan called the decision in United States v. Calandra a "long step toward the abandonmentof the exclusionary rule."
Even Larger Exceptions To The Exclusionary Rule
United States v. Calandra was the most important exclusionary rule case decided in the 1970s. The concept of the rule being a deterrent to police misconduct and the idea of weighing the costs of the rule against its benefitsformed the basis of judicial thinking on the matter. The ruling in UnitedStates v. Calandra reflected the views of President Richard Nixon's appointee, Chief Justice Burger, who had serious reservations about the usefulness of the exclusionary rule.
In the 1980s the Supreme Court created even larger exceptions to the exclusionary rule, severely limiting its application. In United States v. Leon(1984) the Court created the "good faith" exception, stating that if officers acted in good faith, the evidence they unlawfully gathered would still be admissible in court. In the Leon case, the opinion quoted United States v. Calandra, stating that using the fruits of a past unlawful searchor seizure "works no new Fourth Amendment wrong." In 1995, the Supreme Courtrevisited the good faith exception in Arizona v. Evans and used the same quotation from Calandra. In Evans, the Court decided that evidence gathered illegally due to a clerk's error need not be excluded.
The exclusionary rule has many critics. Some have criticized the Court for limiting the rule by creating the good faith exception. Others have suggested that the rule be abolished because it hinders law enforcement. Members of Congress have proposed legislation to do away with the rule in federal court, butsuch legislation has not yet been adopted.
Related Cases
United States
Respondent
John Calandra
Petitioner's Claim
A witness summoned before a grand jury should not be excused from testifyingbecause the questions are based on evidence gathered during an unlawful search and seizure.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Louis F. Claiborne
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Robert J. Rotatori
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F., Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
8 January 1974
Decision
Reversed the decisions of a district court and court of appeals and held thata grand jury witness may not refuse to answer questions on the grounds thatthey are based on evidence gained through unlawful search and seizure.
Significance
In United States v. Calandra, the Supreme Court made it clear that theexclusionary rule was not a personal constitutional right, but was simply meant as a remedy to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect.
In connection with an extensive investigation into suspected illegal gambling, the police obtained a search warrant for the Royal Machine & Tool Co. in Cleveland, Ohio. This business was owned by John Calandra. The warrant specified that the objects of the search were bookmaking records and wagering paraphernalia. The warrant was based on information from informants to the FBI and surveillance by the FBI. On 15 December 1970, federal agents spent four hours searching the premises. The agents did not find any gambling paraphernalia, but they did find a card indicating that Dr. Walter Loveland was making periodic payments to Calandra. The agents seized the card along with books, records, stock certificates, and address books.
On 1 March 1971, a special grand jury convened in the Northern District of Ohio to investigate possible loan sharking activities. The grand jury subpoenaed Calandra to question him. Their questions were based on the material seizedin the search of his business. On 17 August 1971 Calandra appeared before the grand jury but refused to testify, invoking the Fifth Amendment, which states that people may not be compelled to be a witness against themselves. The government asked the district court to grant Calandra immunity. Calandra got apostponement of the immunity hearing so he could prepare a motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search.
Calandra asked that the evidence be suppressed and returned because the warrant was insufficient and the search went beyond the scope of the warrant. Thedistrict court ordered the evidence suppressed and returned and said that Calandra did not need to answer any grand jury questions based on the suppressedevidence. The court agreed that the search warrant had been issued without probable cause, and the search had exceeded the scope of the warrant. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court. The case next went to the Supreme Court.
Exclusionary Rule's Prime Purpose
Justice Powell wrote the opinion for the majority. A grand jury hearing is aninvestigation to determine if a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should take place. If a grand jury feels that criminal proceedings should occur, it will present to the court an indictment, a written accusation made upon oath. Powell noted that the operation of a grand jury is generally unrestrained by the technical, procedural, and evidentiary rules that are used in criminal trials. An indictment is not subject to a challenge thatthe grand jury acted on inadequate evidence or on information obtained in violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.Powell explained that the exclusionary rule was adopted to guard against unreasonable searches and seizures, which are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.Powell noted that the "rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct." The rule is a remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect, "rather than a personal constitutional rightof the party aggrieved." The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted toforbid the use of illegally seized evidence at all times.
Regarding grand juries and the exclusionary rule, Powell explained that "we must weigh the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury against the potential benefits of the rule." Extending the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings would seriously impede grand juries. Suppression hearings would halt the progress of a grand jury investigation. Extending the exclusionary rule to grand jury evidence would deter police investigation that was directed toward finding evidence only for grand jury use. Since evidence obtained unlawfully would not be admissible in a criminal trial, a prosecutor would probably not ask for an indictment in a case where a conviction could not be gained.
Calandra claimed that the grand jury's questions invaded his privacy and because the questions were based on illegally obtained evidence, they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Powell disagreed. The wrong done to Calandra tookplace during the original search and seizure. Grand jury questions based on evidence from that incident "involve no independent governmental invasion . .. , but rather the usual abridgment of personal privacy common to all grand jury questioning." Grand jury questions based on unlawfully obtained evidenceare only a "derivative use" of that evidence. Powell summed up by stating that the damage to grand juries that would be done by extending the use of the exclusionary rule would outweigh the benefit as a deterrent to police misconduct.
Better For Some Guilty People To Go Free
Justice Brennan wrote the dissent. Brennan indicted that the purpose of the exclusionary rule was "to fashion an enforcement tool to give content and meaning to the Fourth Amendment's guarantees" against unlawful searches and seizures. The rule accomplished the goals of helping the judiciary avoid the taintof partnership in official lawlessness and it assured the people that the government would not profit from its lawless behavior. This would help people trust their government. Brennan accused the majority of the Supreme Court of discounting, "to the point of extinction, the vital function of the rule to insure that the judiciary avoid even the slightest appearance of sanctioning illegal government conduct." The judges who established the rule knew that it implied that it was better for some guilty people to go free than for the police to engage in illegal behavior. Brennan expressed concern that the decisionin the case indicated that a majority of justices wanted to abandon the exclusionary rule altogether in search and seizure cases. Brennan called the decision in United States v. Calandra a "long step toward the abandonmentof the exclusionary rule."
Even Larger Exceptions To The Exclusionary Rule
United States v. Calandra was the most important exclusionary rule case decided in the 1970s. The concept of the rule being a deterrent to police misconduct and the idea of weighing the costs of the rule against its benefitsformed the basis of judicial thinking on the matter. The ruling in UnitedStates v. Calandra reflected the views of President Richard Nixon's appointee, Chief Justice Burger, who had serious reservations about the usefulness of the exclusionary rule.
In the 1980s the Supreme Court created even larger exceptions to the exclusionary rule, severely limiting its application. In United States v. Leon(1984) the Court created the "good faith" exception, stating that if officers acted in good faith, the evidence they unlawfully gathered would still be admissible in court. In the Leon case, the opinion quoted United States v. Calandra, stating that using the fruits of a past unlawful searchor seizure "works no new Fourth Amendment wrong." In 1995, the Supreme Courtrevisited the good faith exception in Arizona v. Evans and used the same quotation from Calandra. In Evans, the Court decided that evidence gathered illegally due to a clerk's error need not be excluded.
The exclusionary rule has many critics. Some have criticized the Court for limiting the rule by creating the good faith exception. Others have suggested that the rule be abolished because it hinders law enforcement. Members of Congress have proposed legislation to do away with the rule in federal court, butsuch legislation has not yet been adopted.
Related Cases
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
- Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41 (1972).
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
- Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
Further Readings
- Johnson, John W., ed. Historic U.S. Court Cases, 1690-1990: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992.
- Lieberman, Jethro K. The Evolving Constitution. New York: Random House, 1992.
- Schwartz, Herman, ed. The Burger Years: Rights and Wrongs in the Supreme Court, 1969-1986. New York: Viking, 1987.
User Comments Add a comment…