Connally v. Georgia
97 S. Ct. 546, 50 L. Ed. 2d 444, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 27 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judicial system where a non-salaried magistrate is paid a fee for issuing a search warrant but receives no fee for denying one violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as it creates a pecuniary interest that is incompatible with the constitutional requirement of a neutral and detached magistrate.
Facts:
- Under a Georgia statute, justices of the peace were compensated for issuing search warrants with a $5 fee.
- The statute provided no fee for a justice of the peace who reviewed and denied an application for a search warrant.
- The justice of the peace who issued the warrant against John Connally was not a salaried official.
- This justice's compensation was directly dependent on the number of warrants he issued, and he testified that his primary motivation for taking the job was 'a livelihood.'
- Pursuant to a warrant issued under this system, police searched Connally's house and seized marihuana.
Procedural Posture:
- John Connally was indicted for possession of marihuana in the Superior Court of Walker County, Georgia, a state trial court.
- At trial, Connally filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search warrant was unconstitutional because the issuing justice of the peace had a pecuniary interest in its issuance.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and Connally was convicted.
- Connally, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction, holding that the fee system did not violate the Constitution.
- Connally then filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 state statutory scheme, under which a non-salaried justice of the peace is paid a fee for each search warrant issued but receives no compensation for denying a warrant application, violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments' requirement that warrants be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, this statutory scheme violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The procedure for issuing search warrants is not constitutionally valid when the issuing magistrate's financial welfare is enhanced by issuing a warrant and not enhanced by denying one. Citing Tumey v. Ohio, the Court found that such a system presents a 'possible temptation to the average man as a judge... not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused.' The justice of the peace has a 'direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest' in the outcome of the warrant application, which is incompatible with the role of a neutral and detached judicial officer. The Court rejected the state's argument that the fee was de minimis, holding that the principle of judicial neutrality is paramount, regardless of the amount of money at stake.
Analysis:
This decision extends the due process principles from Tumey v. Ohio, which involved biased trial judges, to the pre-trial, ex parte process of issuing search warrants. It establishes that the Fourth Amendment's requirement for a 'neutral and detached magistrate' prohibits not only prosecutorial bias but also any direct financial incentive that could compromise judicial impartiality. The ruling effectively invalidates any fee-based system where a judicial officer's compensation is contingent on making a specific ruling, thereby strengthening the procedural safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, states were required to eliminate such compensation schemes for magistrates and similar judicial officers.
