United States v. Ventresca
380 U.S. 102 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An affidavit for a search warrant, when viewed in a commonsense and realistic manner, may be sufficient to establish probable cause even if it relies on hearsay from other government investigators involved in the same case and does not specify which investigator observed each particular fact.
Facts:
- Over a one-month period, investigators observed a Pontiac car owned by Joseph Garry making multiple trips to the yard behind Giacomo Ventresca's house.
- On four occasions, Garry and his passenger, Joseph Incardone, were seen delivering large quantities of sugar in 60-pound bags to Ventresca's property.
- On two other occasions, Garry and Incardone were observed delivering new empty tin cans to the same location.
- Late at night after visiting Ventresca's property, Garry and Incardone were seen unloading what appeared to be full five-gallon cans at Garry's house.
- On one occasion, Garry and Incardone were seen taking empty cans into Ventresca's house and later placing cans that appeared to be filled with liquid into their car's trunk.
- In the early morning hours on two separate days, investigators smelled the odor of fermenting mash while on the sidewalk near Ventresca's house.
- On one of these occasions, investigators also heard metallic noises and sounds similar to a motor or pump coming from the direction of Ventresca's house.
Procedural Posture:
- An investigator for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS submitted an affidavit to a U.S. Commissioner, who issued a search warrant for Ventresca's house.
- Ventresca's motion to suppress the evidence found during the search was denied in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- Following a trial in the District Court, Ventresca was convicted of possessing and operating an illegal distillery.
- Ventresca, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause.
- The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a search warrant affidavit sufficient to establish probable cause under the Fourth Amendment when it is based on the collective observations of government agents engaged in a common investigation, even if the affidavit does not specify which agent observed which particular fact?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Goldberg
Yes, the affidavit is sufficient. Affidavits for search warrants must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion, not in a hypertechnical manner. The Fourth Amendment's preference for searches conducted under a warrant means that in marginal cases, a search under a warrant may be sustainable where a warrantless search would fail. Here, the affidavit provided detailed, underlying circumstances rather than mere conclusory statements. The information, sworn to by Investigator Mazaka, was based on his own observations and those of fellow investigators from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division engaged in the same investigation. Observations of fellow officers of the government engaged in a common investigation are a plainly reliable basis for a warrant applied for by one of their number. Therefore, the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
No, the affidavit is insufficient. The affidavit is hopelessly inadequate because it fails to identify the source for most of its factual recitals, leaving it a 'complete mystery' how the information was obtained. It is impossible for a magistrate to determine the trustworthiness of the information without knowing its source, as it could be hearsay-upon-hearsay from an unreliable informant. The magistrate's constitutional duty to make an independent determination of probable cause cannot be delegated to the police. By accepting a 'hodge-podge' of unsourced allegations, the majority allows the mere weight of vague recitals to substitute for probative evidence, eroding the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the preference for warrants by establishing a 'commonsense' standard for judicial review of affidavits, discouraging hypertechnical interpretations that could invalidate them. It established the principle that information from fellow law enforcement officers involved in a joint investigation is presumptively reliable, eliminating the need to detail the credibility of each officer as one would for an informant. This ruling makes it easier for police to obtain warrants based on team investigations and signals to lower courts that they should give deference to a magistrate's initial finding of probable cause.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Ventresca