Brown et al. v. United States
411 U.S. 223 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant lacks standing to challenge a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if they were not on the premises, had no proprietary or possessory interest in the premises or seized items, and were not charged with an offense where possession of the items at the time of the search is an essential element.
Facts:
- Petitioner Brown, a warehouse manager, and Petitioner Smith, a truck driver, worked for the same wholesale company in Cincinnati, Ohio.
- Brown and Smith conspired with a man named Knuckles to steal merchandise from their employer's warehouse.
- On two occasions, approximately two months before their arrest, Brown and Smith stole goods, transported them to Knuckles' store in Manchester, Kentucky, and sold them to Knuckles for cash.
- A company supervisor found a list in Brown's handwriting detailing warehouse merchandise with prices far below wholesale cost and notified the police.
- Police began surveillance and later observed and photographed Brown and Smith loading boxes of merchandise from the warehouse into a truck.
- Police followed the truck, stopped the petitioners, and arrested them, finding the truck contained approximately $6,500 worth of stolen goods.
- After their arrest, both petitioners confessed to the conspiracy and to the prior deliveries of stolen goods to Knuckles' store.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners Brown and Smith, along with Knuckles, were charged in federal District Court with transporting stolen goods and conspiracy.
- Before trial, all three defendants filed motions to suppress the stolen merchandise found at Knuckles' store, arguing the search warrant was defective.
- The prosecution conceded the warrant's defectiveness.
- The District Court granted Knuckles' motion to suppress but denied the motions of Brown and Smith, ruling they lacked standing.
- The merchandise seized from Knuckles' store was admitted into evidence at Brown and Smith's trial, and a jury convicted them on all counts.
- Brown and Smith (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, agreeing that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the search of Knuckles' store.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do defendants have standing under the Fourth Amendment to challenge the search of a co-conspirator's premises and the seizure of stolen goods therein, when the defendants were not present, had no possessory interest in the premises, and the crime charged did not require possession of the goods at the time of the search?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. Defendants lack standing to contest a search and seizure where they were not on the premises at the time of the search, alleged no proprietary or possessory interest in the premises, and were not charged with an offense that includes, as an essential element, possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search. Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be vicariously asserted. The 'automatic' standing rule from Jones v. United States does not apply here because the government's case against the petitioners did not depend on their possession of the stolen goods at the time they were seized from Knuckles' store; the conspiracy and transportation crimes were completed two months prior when the goods were delivered and sold. Furthermore, the self-incrimination dilemma that Jones sought to prevent was eliminated by Simmons v. United States, which held that testimony from a suppression hearing cannot be used against a defendant at trial. Because the petitioners had no legitimate interest in Knuckles' store or the merchandise seized from it, they cannot rely on the Fourth Amendment rights of another to challenge the search.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the 'automatic standing' doctrine established in Jones v. United States. The Court distinguishes cases where possession at the time of the search is an essential element of the crime from those where it is not, limiting the doctrine's application. By emphasizing that the self-incrimination concerns underlying Jones were resolved by Simmons, the Court signals a move away from broad standing rules toward a stricter, more personalized inquiry into a defendant's legitimate expectation of privacy. This case reinforces the principle that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and foreshadows the eventual complete abrogation of the automatic standing rule in later cases like United States v. Salvucci.
Unlock the full brief for Brown et al. v. United States