Mancusi v. DeForte

United States Supreme Court

392 U.S. 364

Mancusi, Warden  v.  DeForte

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

No. 844.  Argued: April 25, 1968. --- Decided: June 17, 1968.

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.

Michael H. Rauch, Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistat Attorney General.

James L. Lekin argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Notes