United States of America v. Morris C. Goldberg
330 F.2d 30 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial, does not apply to evidence obtained through a search and seizure conducted by a private individual acting without any government participation or knowledge.
Facts:
- Morris C. Goldberg was the president and owner of thirteen corporations in the linen supply business.
- Goldberg was personally indebted to his corporations for large sums, which were tracked in 'Loans and Exchange Accounts'.
- In January 1955, Goldberg instructed his controller, Rudolph 'Rudy' Csicsek, to systematically understate the corporations' cash sales in the official books to create funds.
- Goldberg directed Rudy and another employee, Dan Ferrari, to rewrite the original cash and sales journals to reflect lower sales figures, typically by about $3,500 per week.
- The amount of the understated sales was then credited to Goldberg's personal 'Loans and Exchange Accounts,' creating the false appearance that he was repaying his debts to the corporations.
- Goldberg instructed his employees to destroy the original, accurate sales records after the fraudulent ones were created.
- Contrary to Goldberg's instructions, Rudy, Ferrari, and another accountant, Raymond Dombkiewicz, secretly preserved the original corporate records.
- After leaving Goldberg's employ, the three men independently and voluntarily turned these original records, which documented the fraud, over to the Internal Revenue Service.
Procedural Posture:
- Morris C. Goldberg was charged in a 51-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with multiple offenses of income tax evasion.
- Goldberg's co-defendant, Rudolph Csicsek, pleaded nolo contendere.
- The government withdrew numerous counts, and the case proceeded to a jury trial on eight counts against Goldberg.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all eight counts.
- Following the verdict, the trial court granted Goldberg's motion in arrest of judgment as to count one.
- Goldberg (appellant) appealed his convictions on the remaining seven counts to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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's exclusionary rule apply to suppress evidence wrongfully taken from a defendant by private individuals, without any government involvement, and subsequently turned over to government agents?
Opinions:
Majority - Ganey, Circuit Judge
No, the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply to suppress the evidence. Evidence obtained by a private citizen through wrongful means is admissible in a criminal trial, provided the government did not participate in or have prior knowledge of the private citizen's actions. The court relied on Burdeau v. McDowell, which established that the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply only to governmental action, not to the wrongful acts of private individuals. Here, the evidence was clear that the employees—Rudy, Ferrari, and Dombkiewicz—took the corporate records before any contact with government officials. The government was merely the 'unwitting beneficiary' of their actions. The court distinguished Elkins v. United States, which extended the exclusionary rule to state officials, by noting that Elkins still concerned state action, not the conduct of private parties. Therefore, the admission of the stolen corporate records was not an error.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the 'private search doctrine' established in Burdeau v. McDowell, cementing the principle that the Fourth Amendment only constrains government actors. It clarifies that evidence is admissible even if the private individuals who seized it were motivated by personal gain, such as an informer's reward or the hope of prosecutorial leniency. The ruling maintains a clear line between private misconduct and state action, meaning that law enforcement can use evidence that would have been suppressed if they had obtained it themselves. This case serves as a crucial precedent illustrating the 'state action' requirement and a significant limitation on the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.
Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Morris C. Goldberg