Byron White

“ There is no necessity to exclude evidence against one defendant in order to protect the rights of another. No rights of the victim of an illegal search are at stake when the evidence is offered against some other party. The victim can and very probably will object for himself when and if it becomes important for him to do so.
What petitioners appear to assert is an independent constitutional right of their own to exclude relevant and probative evidence because it was seized from another in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ”

“ However, in the cases before us each petitioner demands retrial if any of the evidence used to convict him was the product of unauthorized surveillance, regardless of whose Fourth Amendment rights the surveillance violated At the very least, it is urged that if evidence is inadmissible against one defendant or conspirator, becuase tainted by electronic surveillance illegal as to him, it is also inadmissible against his codefendant or coconspirator. ”

“ Such violation would occur if the United States unlawfully overheard conversations of a petitioner himself or conversations occurring on his premises, whether or not he was present or participated in those conversations. The United States concedes this much and agrees that for purposes of a hearing to determine whether the Government's evidence is tainted by illegal surveillance, the transcripts or recordings of the overheard conversations of any petitioner or of third persons on his premises must be duly and properly examined in the District Court. ”

“ But if the officers have neither a warrant nor the consent of the householder, it is elementary Fourth Amendment law that the narcotics are suppressible on his motion. In both cases, however, the homeowner's interest in the narcotics and his standing to object to their seizure are the same; and insofar as the Fourth Amendment's protection of 'effects' is concerned, the right of the officer to seize the contraband without a warrant and use it in evidence is identical. ”

“ This expansive reading of the Fourth Amendment and of the exclusionary rule fashioned to enforce it is admittedly inconsistent with prior cases, and we reject it. The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Coconspirators and codefendants have been accorded no special standing. ”

“ It must be remembered that disclosure will be limited to the transcripts of a defendant's own conversations and of those which took place on his premises. It can be safely assumed that much of this he will already know, and disclosure should therefore involve a minimum hazard to others. In addition, the trial court can and should, where appropriate, place a defendant and his counsel under enforceable orders against unwarranted disclosure of the materials which they may be entitled to inspect. ”

“ Justice STEWART, who are in partial dissent on this phase of the case, object to our protecting the homeowner against the use of third-party conversations overheard on his prem ses by an unauthorized surveillance. Their position is that unless the conversational privacy of the homeowner himself is invaded, there is no basis in the Fourth Amendment for excluding third-party conversations overheard on his premises. We cannot agree. ”

“ These views we do not accept. We adhere to the established view in this Court that the right to be secure in one's house against unauthorized intrusion is not limited to protection against a policeman viewing or seizing tangible property-'papers' and 'effects.' otherwise, the express security for the home provided by the Fourth Amendment would approach redunancy. ”

“ Unavoidably, this is a matter of judgment, but in our view the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court to identify those records which might have contributed to the Government's case. [14]
The United States concedes that when an illegal search has come to light, it has the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that its evidence is untainted. But at the same time petitioners acknowledge that they must go forward with specific evidence demonstrating taint. ”

“ An apparently innocent phrase, a chance remark, a reference to what appears to be a neutral person or event, the identity of a caller or the individual on the other end of a telephone, or even the manner of speaking or using words may have special significance to one who knows the more intimate facts of an accused's life. ”

“ In its recent wiretapping and eavesdropping legislation, Congress has provided only that an 'aggrieved person' may move to suppress the contents of a wire or oral communication intercepted in violation of the Act. ”

“ As the need for adversary inquiry is increased by the complexity of the issues presented for adjudication, and by the consequent inadequacy of ex parte procedures as a means for their accurate resolution, the displacement of well-informed advocacy necessarily becomes less justifiable. ”

“ These allegations by the Government will have to be considered by the District Court in the first instance, and we express no opinion now on their merit.↑ In our order of June 17, 1968, restoring the Government's motion to the calendar for reargument, 392 U.S. 919-920, 88 S.Ct. 2257, we requested counsel to include the following among issues to be discussed in briefs and oral argument:↑ The United States admits overhearing conversations of each petitioner, but where the surveillance took place and other pertinent details are unknown. ”

“ Cf. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) . Nor does Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966) , lend any support to petitioners' position, since the Court expressly put aside the issue of standing.↑ Title III, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub.L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 211. ”

“ No. 133, O.T., 1967. Petitioners Alderman and Alderisio, along with Ruby Kolod, now deceased, were convicted of conspiring to transmit murderous threats in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 875 (c) . Their convictions were affirmed on appeal, 371 F.2d 983 (C.A.10th Cir. 1967) , and this Court denied certiorari, 389 U.S. 834, 88 S.Ct. ”