Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Francis J. Moran v. C. A. Neff, Superintendent, Field Unit 21, 415 U.S. 940 (1974)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court denied Francis Moran's petition for a writ of certiorari challenging his Virginia drug conviction. Justice Douglas dissented, summarizing that police received a tip about Moran possessing drugs in a motel room but did not get a warrant, instead planning to search under the guise of a drug purchase; the search of Moran's truck and possessions found significant drugs. Justice Douglas argued there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search, and an officer's good faith alone cannot replace the need for a neutral magistrate's determination that a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Francis J. Moran v. C. A. Neff, Superintendent, Field Unit 21, 415 U.S. 940 (1974)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    42 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court denied Francis Moran's petition for a writ of certiorari challenging his Virginia drug conviction. Justice Douglas dissented, summarizing that police received a tip about Moran possessing drugs in a motel room but did not get a warrant, instead planning to search under the guise of a drug purchase; the search of Moran's truck and possessions found significant drugs. Justice Douglas argued there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search, and an officer's good faith alone cannot replace the need for a neutral magistrate's determination that a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1974-02-20 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 415 U.S. 940 Docket: 73-5868

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied Francis Moran's petition for a writ of certiorari challenging his Virginia drug conviction. Justice Douglas dissented, summarizing that police received a tip about Moran possessing drugs in a motel room but did not get a warrant, instead planning to search under the guise of a drug purchase; the search of Moran's truck and possessions found significant drugs. Justice Douglas argued there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search, and an officer's good faith alone cannot replace the need for a neutral magistrate's determination that a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    42 views3 pages

    Francis J. Moran v. C. A. Neff, Superintendent, Field Unit 21, 415 U.S. 940 (1974)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court denied Francis Moran's petition for a writ of certiorari challenging his Virginia drug conviction. Justice Douglas dissented, summarizing that police received a tip about Moran possessing drugs in a motel room but did not get a warrant, instead planning to search under the guise of a drug purchase; the search of Moran's truck and possessions found significant drugs. Justice Douglas argued there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search, and an officer's good faith alone cannot replace the need for a neutral magistrate's determination that a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    415 U.S.

    940
    94 S.Ct. 1460
    39 L.Ed.2d 499

    Francis J. MORAN
    v.
    C. A. NEFF, Superintendent, Field Unit #21.
    No. 73-5868.

    Supreme Court of the United States


    February 20, 1974

    On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
    the Fourth Circuit.
    The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
    Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

    The petitioner brought this federal habeas corpus action to challenge his
    Virginia conviction for possession of controlled drugs with intent to distribute.
    The District Court granted the writ as to one ground, challenged here by the
    State in the joined case of Neff v. Moran, 73-660, but rejected the petitioner's
    claim that evidence seized in a warrantless search should have been suppressed.
    The Court of Appeals affirmed in reliance upon the District Court's opinion.

    An informer who had given accurate information in the past called State Police
    Investigator Mitchell concerning the possession and sale of controlled drugs at
    a truck-stop motel. He provided Mitchell with a physical description of the
    petitioner and trailer-tractor rig, the license number of the rig, and the number
    of petitioner's motel room. Mitchell made no attempt to secure a search warrant
    based upon this information. Rather he called three other officers to his home
    where they arranged a plan whereby Mitchell would present himself to
    petitioner as a truck driver and attempt to purchase drugs. Two hours later the
    officers arrived at the motel, but found petitioner's room unoccupied and his
    truck absent. But soon afterward they saw the described rig on a nearby
    freeway. Mitchell pulled the truck over and informed petitioner that he had

    probable cause to believe that he was transporting illegal drugs, and that his
    vehicle would be searched. Petitioner came down from the rig and a search of
    his person revealed a vile containing five pills. A subsequent search inside the
    cab however produced a considerable cache of drugs in the glove compartment,
    a cigar box, a brief case, and a suit case, all of which had to be opened by the
    officers.
    3

    Petitioner here does not contest the District Court's conclusion that the officers
    had probable cause. But 'no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless
    seizure,' Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 471, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29
    L.Ed.2d 564. The District Court found, however, that there were exigent
    circumstances justifying the warrantless search, since here there was an 'out-ofstate truck on a highway leading out of the jurisdiction.' The petitioner argues
    that there were no exigent circumstances precluding the police from securing a
    warrant in the first instance, before going to the motel room, or after stopping
    the truck. He draws support from the District Court's own findings. The
    informer provided the police with no information suggesting that petitioner
    would soon be leaving the motel, and it was not a perception of need for
    immediate action that led the police to choose their course. Rather the District
    Court found that 'Officer Mitchell admittedly desired to circumvent the warrant
    process in order to protect his informant's identify.' Although the officer's
    reasoning was erroneous, as there is no requirement that the informer be
    identified in obtaining a warrant, the District Court concluded that the police
    were acting 'in good faith,' so that the 'investigative tactics, although dilatory
    with reference to procurement of a warrant, were not so unreasonable as to
    constitute a conscious disregard and avoidance of the warrant process.'

    But 'good faith' cannot under the Fourth Amendment justify a warrantless
    search. An officer may in good faith believe there is ample probable cause to
    justify a search, but the Constitution requires that decision to be made by a
    'neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged
    in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime . . ..' Johnson v. United
    States, 333 U.S. 10, 13, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436. Nor can an officer's goodfaith belief that no warrant was required render unnecessary a judicial officer's
    independent determination of whether the search was reasonable under the
    Fourth Amendment.

    Nor can this search be justified as incident to a valid arrest, and the District
    Court so held, since 'Mitchell had no intention of arresting or detaining
    [petitioner] unless he discovered narcotics within his possession.' Thus this is a
    simple case, presenting the question of whether a police officer with ample
    time to secure a warrant may deliberately circumvent this constitutional

    requirement on the basis of his judgment that the police will be more effective
    without judicial oversight of his decision to search. My views on the necessity
    for obtaining a warrant are detailed in my opinion in United States v. Matlock,
    415 U.S. 164, 178, 94 S.Ct. 988, 996, 39 L.Ed.2d 242, decided this day. On that
    basis I would grant this petition for certiorari.

    You might also like