United States v. Calandra
414 U.S. 338 (1974)
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, which prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial, does not apply to grand jury proceedings. Therefore, a witness may not refuse to answer questions before a grand jury on the grounds that the questions are based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure.
Facts:
- Federal agents, investigating suspected illegal gambling, obtained a warrant to search John Calandra's business, the Royal Machine & Tool Co., for bookmaking records and wagering paraphernalia.
- On December 15, 1970, agents executed the warrant, conducting a four-hour search of the premises.
- Although the agents did not find any gambling-related materials, one agent discovered a card indicating periodic payments from a Dr. Walter Loveland to Calandra.
- The agent, aware of a separate investigation into extortionate credit transactions ('loansharking') involving Dr. Loveland, concluded the card was a loansharking record.
- The agent seized the card along with other items, such as company books, records, and stock certificates.
- Subsequently, a special grand jury was convened to investigate loansharking activities.
- The grand jury subpoenaed Calandra with the intention of asking him questions based on the evidence seized during the search of his business.
Procedural Posture:
- John Calandra was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury.
- He appeared but refused to testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- The Government requested the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to grant Calandra transactional immunity.
- Calandra filed a motion in the District Court for the suppression and return of the evidence seized from his business.
- The District Court granted Calandra's motion, ordering the evidence suppressed and ruling that Calandra did not have to answer any grand jury questions based on that evidence.
- The United States (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (appellee Calandra) affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The United States (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 permit a witness testifying before a grand jury to refuse to answer questions on the ground that they are based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
No. The exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings, and a witness may not refuse to answer questions on the ground that they are based on illegally seized evidence. The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the victim of the search, but to deter future unlawful police conduct. The court reasoned that extending the rule to grand jury proceedings would offer only a speculative and minimal incremental deterrent effect, as the principal deterrent remains the inadmissibility of such evidence at a subsequent criminal trial. This minimal benefit is heavily outweighed by the potential damage to the grand jury's historic role and investigative function, as allowing such challenges would lead to 'minitrials' on collateral issues, causing protracted interruptions and delays. Questions based on illegally obtained evidence are a derivative use of a past wrong, not a new Fourth Amendment violation.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. A witness should be permitted to invoke the exclusionary rule before a grand jury. The majority's holding reflects a 'startling misconception' of the exclusionary rule's historical purpose, which is not merely deterrence but also the preservation of 'judicial integrity' and ensuring the government does not profit from its own lawlessness. By allowing the use of illegally seized evidence, the court becomes a party to the unconstitutional conduct. The dissent argues that this case is controlled by the precedent set in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, which held that evidence obtained illegally shall not be used 'at all.' Ignoring this rule imperils the public's trust in government and makes the Fourth Amendment's protections a 'chimera.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, establishing that its protections do not extend to the grand jury's investigative phase. The Court frames the exclusionary rule not as a personal constitutional right, but as a judicially created remedy whose application is determined by a cost-benefit balancing test. This approach prioritizes the efficiency and broad investigative power of the grand jury over the rule's potential deterrent effects in this specific context, signaling a shift toward a more pragmatic and less absolute view of the rule's scope.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Calandra (1974)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"