Alderman v. United States
394 U.S. 165 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be vicariously asserted; a defendant has standing to challenge evidence from an illegal electronic surveillance only if their own conversation was overheard or if the surveillance occurred on their premises. If a defendant has standing, the surveillance records must be disclosed to them for an adversary hearing on the issue of taint, rather than being reviewed privately by a judge.
Facts:
- Petitioners Alderman and Alderisio were involved in a conspiracy to transmit murderous threats in interstate commerce.
- The U.S. government conducted unlawful electronic surveillance on a place of business owned by one of Alderisio's associates.
- Conversations involving Alderisio were overheard as a result of this surveillance.
- In a separate case, petitioners Ivanov and Butenko were involved in a conspiracy to transmit national defense information to the Soviet Union.
- The government conducted electronic surveillance and admitted to overhearing conversations of both Ivanov and Butenko.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners Alderman and Alderisio were convicted of conspiracy in a federal district court.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed their convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court initially denied their petition for a writ of certiorari.
- In a petition for rehearing, the petitioners alleged the government had used illegal electronic surveillance.
- The Supreme Court granted rehearing, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded to the District Court for a hearing on the surveillance issue.
- The U.S. government filed a motion in the Supreme Court to modify the remand order, requesting that the surveillance records first be inspected in camera by the trial judge.
- In separate cases, petitioners Ivanov and Butenko were convicted of conspiracy in a federal district court, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari for Ivanov and Butenko, limited to the same standing and disclosure questions present in the Alderman case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant have standing under the Fourth Amendment to object to the use of evidence obtained from illegal electronic surveillance that did not overhear their conversation or occur on their premises, and must the government disclose all surveillance records to a defendant with standing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, a defendant does not have standing to object to evidence from illegal surveillance that did not violate their own personal privacy rights, but yes, the government must disclose relevant surveillance records to a defendant who does have standing. The Court held that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be vicariously asserted by co-conspirators or co-defendants who were not themselves victims of the illegal surveillance. A defendant has standing only if they participated in the overheard conversation or if the surveillance occurred on their premises, as an unauthorized bug on one's property is a violation of the homeowner's own right to be secure in their house. For defendants with standing, the Court rejected the government's proposal for an in camera inspection by the trial judge, ruling that the complexity of determining whether evidence is tainted requires a full adversarial proceeding where the defendant has access to the surveillance records to effectively argue their case.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Harlan
No, co-conspirators should not have standing, but the majority's rule is flawed. The Court is correct to deny standing to co-conspirators, but wrong to grant standing to a property owner for conversations in which they did not participate. Since Katz v. United States established that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, standing should be limited to those who actually participated in an illegally overheard conversation. Granting standing to a property owner for others' conversations revives outdated property-based concepts and allows for the vicarious assertion of others' rights. Furthermore, for cases involving national security, like those of Ivanov and Butenko, an in camera screening by a judge should be permitted to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information to defendants accused of espionage.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Fortas
No, the Court's standing rule is too narrow, but in certain cases, a private review by a judge should be allowed. The Court's holding improperly restricts the exclusionary rule. Standing should be extended not only to those whose conversations were heard or premises were bugged, but also to any person who was a target of the investigation—one 'against whom the search was directed.' This approach would better deter illegal government conduct. Regarding procedure, while adversarial hearings are generally necessary, a trial judge should be permitted to conduct an in camera inspection of materials when the Attorney General certifies that their disclosure would harm national security.
Analysis:
This decision solidified the principle that Fourth Amendment standing is personal and cannot be asserted vicariously, rejecting the broader 'target' theory of standing advocated by the dissent. By extending standing to a property owner for any conversation overheard on their premises, the Court treated electronic surveillance as analogous to a physical trespass, thereby protecting the sanctity of the home. The most significant procedural impact was the rejection of in camera review, which created a powerful tool for the defense. This ruling forces the government into a difficult choice: either disclose potentially sensitive surveillance records to the defendant or dismiss the prosecution, significantly strengthening a defendant's hand in cases involving electronic eavesdropping.
Unlock the full brief for Alderman v. United States