United States v. Lefkowitz
1932 U.S. LEXIS 446, 285 U.S. 452, 52 S. Ct. 420 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment prohibits a general, exploratory search of a person's office conducted solely to find evidence of guilt as an incident to a lawful arrest. An arrest warrant does not authorize law enforcement to rummage through the arrestee's private papers and effects.
Facts:
- A prohibition agent filed a complaint alleging that Henry Lefkowitz and an associate, Paris, were conspiring to sell intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act.
- The complaint stated that the conspiracy involved soliciting orders for liquor from an office in room 604 at 1547 Broadway in New York City.
- Based on the complaint, a U.S. commissioner issued a warrant for the arrest of Lefkowitz and Paris.
- Federal prohibition agents and a deputy marshal went to the office to execute the arrest warrant.
- Upon entering, they arrested Lefkowitz, who was present in the room.
- Following the arrest, the agents conducted a thorough, warrantless search of the entire office.
- The agents opened and searched the drawers of two desks, a towel cabinet, and waste baskets, seizing numerous books, papers, address lists, and other articles.
- While the search was in progress, Paris entered the office and was also arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Following his arrest and the search of his office, Lefkowitz applied to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for an order to suppress the seized evidence and return his property.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
- Lefkowitz, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's order, holding the search was unreasonable.
- The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
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 warrantless, general, and exploratory search of a person's office for the sole purpose of finding evidentiary materials, conducted contemporaneously with a lawful arrest under a valid warrant, violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Butler
Yes, such a search violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. An arrest may not be used as a pretext for a general and exploratory search for evidence. The authority of officers to search a place of business contemporaneously with a lawful arrest is not greater than that conferred by a valid search warrant. Here, the search was not for specific contraband or instrumentalities of the crime being committed in the officers' presence, but was an unrestrained rummaging through private papers solely to discover evidence of guilt. The court distinguished this case from Marron v. United States, where seized items were in plain view and were considered part of the apparatus used to commit a crime openly taking place. The papers here were sought only for their evidentiary value, and a search for 'mere evidence,' even with a warrant, was impermissible under existing precedent like Gouled v. United States. Citing the historical importance of Entick v. Carrington, the court affirmed that forcing a person to produce their private papers to be used as evidence to convict them is contrary to the principles of both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limited the scope of the search incident to arrest doctrine, establishing that a lawful arrest does not give law enforcement a blank check to conduct a general exploratory search for evidence. It reinforced the distinction between seizing instrumentalities or fruits of a crime versus searching for "mere evidence," a rule that would remain influential until it was overturned by Warden v. Hayden in 1967. The case underscored the judiciary's preference for search warrants issued by neutral magistrates over the hurried, on-the-spot judgments of arresting officers, thereby strengthening Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
