Walter v. United States
65 L. Ed. 2d 410, 447 U.S. 649, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 135 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government search following a private search must be confined to the scope of the initial private search. Any expansion by the government beyond what was discovered by the private party constitutes a new, independent search that requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- Petitioners shipped 12 large, securely sealed packages containing 871 boxes of 8-millimeter film via a private carrier from Florida to Georgia.
- The shipment was addressed to a fictitious entity, 'Leggs, Inc.'
- The private carrier mistakenly delivered the packages to a different company, 'L'Eggs Products, Inc.'
- Employees of L'Eggs Products, Inc. opened the packages, finding individual film boxes with suggestive drawings and explicit descriptions of their contents.
- An employee opened one or two boxes and unsuccessfully attempted to view the film by holding it up to the light.
- The employees then contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
- An FBI agent took possession of the packages from the employees.
- Sometime later, without obtaining a warrant, FBI agents viewed the films using a projector.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners were indicted in federal district court on obscenity charges.
- At trial, petitioners filed a motion to suppress the films, arguing they were obtained through an illegal search, which the trial court denied.
- Following a trial, petitioners were convicted on multiple counts.
- Petitioners appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and the convictions.
- Petitioners successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 warrantless screening by federal agents of films contained in securely sealed packages constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, when the agents lawfully acquired the packages after a private party had opened them and discovered the film boxes but had not viewed the films themselves?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stevens
Yes. The unauthorized exhibition of the films constituted an unreasonable invasion of their owner's constitutionally protected interest in privacy. The fact that FBI agents were lawfully in possession of the boxes of film did not give them authority to search their contents. The government's right to inspect materials turned over by a private party is limited to the scope of that party's search; here, the private party had not viewed the films. The FBI's projection of the films was a significant expansion of the private search, and therefore must be characterized as a separate search which, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, violated the Fourth Amendment.
Concurring - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The Government's warrantless projection of the films constituted a search that infringed petitioners' Fourth Amendment interests. This would be true even if the private parties had projected the films before turning them over to the Government. A private search does not insulate a subsequent governmental search from Fourth Amendment scrutiny. The Government's screening of the films was an independent search that required a warrant, regardless of any previous screening by private parties, because the petitioners retained a legitimate expectation of privacy in the content of the films.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. The Government's screening of the films was not an additional, unconstitutional search. By the time the FBI received the films, the petitioners had no remaining reasonable expectation of privacy in their contents. The private search had already revealed the explicit nature of the films through the labels and drawings on the boxes. The FBI's subsequent viewing on a projector did not 'change the nature of the search' but merely confirmed what was already obvious, and thus was not an additional search subject to the warrant requirement.
Analysis:
This case refines the private search doctrine by establishing that a subsequent government search is constrained by the scope of the initial private intrusion. The decision prevents the government from using a limited private search as a license for a more expansive, warrantless investigation. It reinforces the principle that lawful possession of a container does not negate the owner's privacy interest in its contents. This holding has significant implications for Fourth Amendment law in the digital age, where a private party might access a device but not the full extent of its data, limiting subsequent government searches without a warrant.
