Sgro v. United States
1932 U.S. LEXIS 13, 53 S. Ct. 138, 287 U.S. 206 (1932)
Rule of Law:
An expired search warrant, rendered void by statute for not being executed within the prescribed timeframe, cannot be revived or reissued merely by changing its date without a new application and fresh determination of probable cause.
Facts:
- Sgro was charged with violating the National Prohibition Act by possessing and selling intoxicating liquor at the Bouckville Hotel.
- On or about July 6, 1926, William Arthur, a United States Commissioner, issued a search warrant for Sgro's hotel based on an affidavit from C. G. Dodd, who swore he purchased beer from Sgro.
- The initial search warrant was not executed within ten days of its July 6 date, causing it to become void under statutory provisions.
- On July 27, 1926, the expired search warrant was returned to Commissioner Arthur by prohibition agents.
- Commissioner Arthur, or someone in his office, changed the date of the search warrant from July 6 to July 27, 1926, and "reissued" it.
- Acting under the color of this redated warrant, prohibition agents searched the Bouckville Hotel and found gin and beer.
- The Commissioner took no new proof of probable cause on July 27 and made no new finding of probable cause at that time.
Procedural Posture:
- Sgro was charged in District Court with violating the National Prohibition Act.
- Sgro requested the District Court to restrain the use of evidence obtained during the search of his hotel, but the request was denied.
- The evidence was introduced at Sgro's trial over his objection, and he was found guilty.
- The judgment against Sgro was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the 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 the redating and reissuance of an expired search warrant, without a new application or fresh proof of probable cause, render a subsequent search unlawful?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
No, the redating and reissuance of an expired search warrant, without a new application or fresh proof of probable cause, renders a subsequent search unlawful. The Court held that the original search warrant, issued on July 6, became void after ten days as explicitly required by Section 11 of the Act of June 15, 1917, which states that a warrant not executed within ten days is void. The proceeding by search warrant is a drastic one and must be liberally construed in favor of the individual, consistent with the Fourth Amendment. While the statute does not fix the time for taking proof of probable cause, such proof must relate to facts so closely connected to the time of the warrant's issue as to justify a finding of probable cause at that moment. The Commissioner’s action of merely changing the date of a void warrant, without a new application and a fresh determination of probable cause, was unauthorized. The issue of a second warrant is essentially a new proceeding that must have adequate support, including current proof of probable cause. The Commissioner made no finding of probable cause on July 27, nor did he take any new proof at that time, making the reissued warrant invalid. Therefore, the search conducted under it was unlawful. The Court cited precedents such as Boyd v. United States, Byars v. United States, Marron v. United States, and United States v. Lefkowitz to emphasize the strict construction of search warrant procedures.
Concurring - Mr. Justice McReynolds
Yes, the judgment below should be reversed because the search warrant of July 27 was invalid. Mr. Justice McReynolds concurred in the reversal, agreeing that the search warrant was invalid. He addressed the government's argument that redating the warrant was essentially issuing a new, valid warrant based on the original July 6 affidavit. He argued that for a new warrant to be valid, the underlying affidavit must not be stale. Given that Section 11 of the Espionage Act declares a search warrant void after ten days if not executed, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress intended this period to mark the limit of when the initial probable cause can be presumed to continue. Therefore, an affidavit more than ten days old cannot properly indicate presently existing conditions, and a search warrant should not issue upon such an affidavit. He concluded that even if the Commissioner relied on the original affidavit for the July 27 warrant, it was invalid because the affidavit itself had become stale after three weeks.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the temporal requirement for probable cause in search warrants, emphasizing that the grounds for a warrant must exist at the time of its issuance. It prevents law enforcement from indefinitely extending the life of a warrant or relying on stale information simply by administrative redating. The decision reinforces the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by ensuring that judicial oversight of probable cause is fresh and meaningful, not a mere formality. Future cases will continue to scrutinize the timeliness of probable cause evidence to validate search warrants.
