Giordenello v. United States
357 U.S. 480 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arrest warrant issued on a complaint that merely states the affiant's conclusion that the defendant committed a crime, without providing any underlying facts or circumstances for the magistrate to independently assess probable cause, is invalid under the Fourth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4.
Facts:
- Federal Bureau of Narcotics Agent Finley received information from various sources in Houston that Veto Giordenello was involved with narcotics.
- On January 26, 1956, Finley signed and swore to a written complaint before a U.S. Commissioner.
- The complaint stated that on or about that date, Giordenello "did receive, conceal, etc., narcotic drugs, to-wit: heroin hydrochloride with knowledge of unlawful importation" in violation of federal law.
- The complaint did not state Finley's personal knowledge of these events or identify his sources of information.
- The following day, Finley observed Giordenello drive to his residence, enter, and then emerge and drive to another residence.
- When Giordenello exited the second residence carrying a brown paper bag, Finley executed the arrest warrant.
- Finley seized the bag from Giordenello, which was found to contain heroin.
- After his arrest, Giordenello admitted to purchasing the heroin in Chicago and transporting it to Houston.
Procedural Posture:
- Veto Giordenello filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, arguing his arrest was illegal.
- The District Court, the trial court of first instance, denied the motion.
- Following a trial without a jury, the District Court convicted Giordenello of unlawful purchase of narcotics.
- Giordenello, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Giordenello's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 complaint for an arrest warrant, which only recites the elements of the alleged crime without providing any factual basis for the complainant's belief, provide a sufficient basis for a magistrate to find the probable cause required to issue the warrant?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. A complaint for an arrest warrant that merely recites the elements of a crime without providing any underlying factual basis is constitutionally insufficient because it prevents the magistrate from making an independent finding of probable cause. The Fourth Amendment and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the determination of probable cause be made by a 'neutral and detached magistrate,' not by the law enforcement officer. To fulfill this function, the magistrate must be presented with facts and circumstances, not merely the complainant's conclusions. The complaint in this case contained no affirmative allegation of the officer's personal knowledge, did not indicate any sources for his belief, and set forth no other basis upon which a finding of probable cause could be made. To uphold such a complaint would reduce the magistrate's role to that of a rubber stamp for the police, which contravenes the purpose of the warrant requirement.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. A complaint that makes a positive and absolute statement under oath that the defendant committed the acts constituting the crime is sufficient for a finding of probable cause. The complaint here stated as fact that Giordenello 'did receive [and] conceal' narcotics, which is a prima facie offense. The majority's demand for the 'sources for the complainant’s belief' is an unwarranted and novel extension of Rule 4, especially given that sources in narcotics cases are often confidential. The majority wrongly equates the standards for arrest warrants with those for search warrants and creates an unfair double standard by deciding the case on a ground petitioner barely argued, while refusing to consider the government's well-briefed argument that the arrest was lawful even without a valid warrant.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the requirements for obtaining a valid arrest warrant under the Fourth Amendment. It established the principle that a police officer's sworn conclusion is insufficient; the warrant application must contain underlying facts to allow a magistrate to independently determine probable cause. This reinforces the judiciary's role as a check on executive law enforcement power, preventing officers from being the sole judges of when an arrest is justified. The ruling forces law enforcement to be more diligent and specific in preparing warrant affidavits, thereby strengthening the protections against unreasonable seizures for all citizens.
Unlock the full brief for Giordenello v. United States