Gouled v. United States
255 U.S. 298 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government may not seize a person's private papers, either by stealth without a warrant or with a warrant, for the sole purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal prosecution. A valid search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment requires the government to have a superior property interest in the items seized, such as if they are contraband or the instrumentalities of a crime, not merely items of 'evidential value only'.
Facts:
- Felix Gouled and an Army officer, Vaughan, were suspected by the federal government of conspiring to defraud the United States through government contracts.
- A private in the Army's Intelligence Department, Cohen, who was a business acquaintance of Gouled, was directed by his superior officers to investigate.
- Under the pretense of making a friendly call, Cohen gained admission to Gouled's office.
- While Gouled was temporarily absent from the room, Cohen, acting without a warrant, secretly searched for and took several documents.
- One of the seized papers was described as having 'evidential value only' and belonged to Gouled.
- Separately, federal agents obtained two search warrants for Gouled's office based on affidavits alleging that papers there were used to commit a felony.
- Pursuant to these warrants, agents seized other papers, including an unexecuted contract, a signed contract, and an attorney's bill.
- These papers seized under warrant were also described as having no pecuniary value and being of 'evidential value only'.
Procedural Posture:
- Gouled, Vaughan, and an attorney were jointly indicted in federal court for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and for mail fraud.
- Before trial, Gouled filed a motion for the return of the papers seized under the search warrants, which the trial court denied.
- At the trial, before evidence was introduced, the motion was renewed and again denied by the trial court.
- During the trial, the papers seized by stealth and under the warrants were admitted into evidence over Gouled's constitutional objections.
- Gouled was convicted, while one co-defendant pleaded guilty and the other was acquitted.
- Gouled appealed his conviction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals certified six questions of law to the U.S. Supreme Court for determination.
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 the seizure of a person's private papers, either by stealth without a warrant or through a search warrant, for the sole purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal prosecution violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clarke
Yes, the seizure of a person's private papers for the sole purpose of using them as evidence violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is violated when a government representative gains access to a person's office by stealth and secretly seizes papers, just as it would be if access were gained by force. Furthermore, search warrants may not be used to conduct a general exploratory search for evidence, but are limited to seizing items in which the public has a property interest, such as the instrumentalities or fruits of a crime. Seizing papers of 'evidential value only' is unconstitutional, and admitting such papers into evidence is equivalent to compelling a defendant to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'mere evidence rule,' which significantly limited the government's search and seizure powers. By holding that the government could only seize items in which it had a superior property interest (contraband, instrumentalities, or fruits of a crime), the Court created a distinction between seizable and non-seizable items based on property law concepts. This rule prevented law enforcement from using warrants as a tool for fishing expeditions into a suspect's private papers simply to find incriminating evidence. Although the 'mere evidence rule' itself was later abrogated by Warden v. Hayden (1967), the principles articulated in Gouled regarding the protection of private papers and the unconstitutionality of searches by stealth remain foundational to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
Unlock the full brief for Gouled v. United States