United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to electronic surveillance in domestic security matters. The President does not have inherent constitutional power to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance of domestic organizations, even if it is to protect against threats of subversion or attack.
Facts:
- The United States charged three defendants, including Lawrence 'Pun' Plamondon, with conspiracy to destroy government property.
- Plamondon was specifically charged with the dynamite bombing of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) office in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
- Without a judicial warrant, government agents conducted electronic surveillance and overheard conversations in which Plamondon participated.
- The Attorney General of the United States, John Mitchell, personally approved the wiretaps.
- The stated purpose for the surveillance was to gather intelligence on domestic organizations deemed to be attempting to 'attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government.'
- The government's affidavit confirmed the surveillance targeted a domestic organization and presented no evidence of involvement by a foreign power.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Plamondon and two co-defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- During pretrial proceedings, the defendants filed a motion to compel disclosure of electronic surveillance information.
- The United States submitted an affidavit from the Attorney General acknowledging the warrantless surveillance and asserting its legality.
- The District Court (the trial court) held the surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment and ordered the government to disclose the records to defendant Plamondon.
- The United States, as petitioner, sought a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to vacate the District Court's order.
- The Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court) denied the writ, holding that the surveillance was unlawful and affirming the disclosure order.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
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 Fourth Amendment require a judicial warrant for electronic surveillance in domestic security cases, or does the President have inherent constitutional power to authorize such surveillance without prior judicial approval?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial warrant for electronic surveillance in domestic security cases. The Court held that the President's duty to protect national security does not create an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for surveillance targeting purely domestic threats. The Court first determined that Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was a neutral disclaimer of congressional intent to legislate on this issue, thus requiring a constitutional analysis. Balancing the government's duty to protect domestic security against citizens' Fourth Amendment privacy rights and First Amendment free expression rights, the Court found the warrant requirement to be a crucial safeguard against unchecked executive discretion. The Court reasoned that executive officials, tasked with investigation and prosecution, are not the 'neutral and detached' magistrates required by the Constitution, and allowing them to authorize surveillance based on a vague concept like 'domestic security' poses a significant danger to political dissent. The Court rejected the government's arguments that security matters are too complex for judges and that secrecy would be compromised, noting that courts regularly handle sensitive information. The decision was explicitly limited to domestic security and expressed no opinion on the President's powers concerning foreign powers or their agents.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Yes, a warrant is required. Justice Douglas wrote separately to emphasize the grave dangers of warrantless electronic surveillance, which he described as a clandestine practice that victims are unaware of, making traditional checks on government power ineffective. He argued that when the government claims its purpose is intelligence gathering rather than prosecution, the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule is negligible, making prior judicial oversight even more critical. He drew historical parallels to the abuses of general warrants by the British Crown, which the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent. Justice Douglas warned that 'domestic security' is often used as a pretext by the executive branch to intimidate and monitor political critics, leading to a 'national seizure of paranoia' that corrodes civil liberties.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, the surveillance was unlawful, but the judgment should be affirmed on statutory grounds without reaching the constitutional question. Justice White argued that the Court should have first analyzed whether the surveillance was legal under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. He concluded that the Attorney General's affidavit failed to meet the specific requirements of the Act's national security exception in § 2511(3). The affidavit only mentioned protecting against attempts to 'attack and subvert' the government, which did not satisfy the statute's stricter standard of protecting against 'overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger.' Because the surveillance was illegal under the statute, Justice White found it unnecessary and improper for the court to decide the broader constitutional issue.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established that there is no 'national security' exception to the Fourth Amendment for surveillance targeting purely domestic threats, thereby affirming the judiciary's role as a check on executive power. The ruling created a clear distinction between domestic surveillance, which requires a traditional warrant, and foreign intelligence surveillance, which the Court left unaddressed. This distinction directly prompted Congress to enact the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which established a specialized court and warrant procedure for foreign intelligence gathering. The case, often called the Keith case, remains a cornerstone of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, reinforcing that vague security justifications cannot override specific constitutional protections.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan