United States v. Payner
447 U.S. 727 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court may not use its supervisory power to suppress evidence obtained through an unlawful search of a third party, as a defendant must demonstrate a violation of their own Fourth Amendment rights to have standing to challenge the evidence.
Facts:
- The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of 'Operation Trade Winds,' investigated Jack Payner's financial activities in the Bahamas.
- IRS Special Agent Richard Jaffe enlisted a private investigator, Norman Casper, to obtain records from the Castle Bank.
- With Jaffe's approval, Casper arranged for his associate, Sybol Kennedy, to lure a Castle Bank vice president, Michael Wolstencroft, to her apartment in Miami.
- While Wolstencroft was at dinner with Kennedy, Casper used a key she provided to enter the apartment and steal Wolstencroft's briefcase.
- Casper delivered the briefcase to Jaffe, who supervised the photocopying of approximately 400 documents from it before it was returned to the apartment.
- Information from the copied documents led the government to discover a loan guarantee agreement signed by Payner, which was the primary evidence that he had a foreign bank account he had denied on his tax return.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack Payner was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for falsifying his income tax return.
- Payner filed a motion to suppress the key evidence against him, the loan guarantee agreement.
- The District Court, after a trial, found Payner guilty but then granted the motion to suppress under its supervisory power, setting aside the conviction.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed the suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, with Jack Payner as the appellee.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 federal court have the authority under its supervisory power to suppress evidence obtained through a deliberately unlawful search of a third party when the defendant's own Fourth Amendment rights were not violated?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. A federal court's supervisory power does not authorize the suppression of otherwise admissible evidence seized unlawfully from a third party not before the court. The Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule is a personal right, restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are best served. As established in cases like Rakas v. Illinois, a defendant lacks standing to challenge a search unless their own legitimate expectation of privacy was violated. Payner had no expectation of privacy in the bank records seized from Wolstencroft's briefcase. To allow suppression under the supervisory power would be to substitute individual judicial judgment for the established constitutional limitations of the Fourth Amendment, upsetting the balance between deterring illegal conduct and the societal interest in admitting probative evidence.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. A federal court should exercise its supervisory powers to suppress evidence obtained through intentional and unconstitutional government misconduct in order to protect the integrity of the judicial system. The purpose of supervisory power is not merely to vindicate a defendant's rights, but to prevent the courts from becoming accomplices to deliberate government lawlessness. The majority's holding allows the government to intentionally violate one person's Fourth Amendment rights to obtain evidence against another, effectively using the standing rule as a 'sword.' By admitting evidence from this 'briefcase caper,' the judiciary places its imprimatur on the government's criminal actions and pollutes the waters of justice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of the Fourth Amendment's personal standing requirement for evidence suppression. It significantly curtails the use of a federal court's inherent supervisory power as an independent basis to exclude evidence, even in cases of egregious and deliberate government misconduct. The ruling creates a clear, though controversial, line: if the defendant's own rights were not violated, the exclusionary rule does not apply, regardless of how the government obtained the evidence from a third party. This provides law enforcement with a potential loophole to gather evidence by targeting individuals who will not be the ultimate defendants.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Payner