CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-SEARCH AND SEIZURE-USE IN STATE COURTS OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY

Authors

Howard N. Thiele, Jr., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Petitioner was convicted of bookmaking under the anti-gambling laws of California by the use of evidence obtained through unreasonable search and seizure and through disclosures petitioner made when purchasing a federal wagering tax stamp. While petitioner and his wife were away, police concealed a microphone in the hall of his home, later moving it to the bedroom and finally to a bedroom closet. The instrument was connected to a receiver in a neighboring garage where other officers monitored all conversations for more than a month. Petitioner exhausted all state remedies in his attempt to have the evidence so obtained declared inadmissible. On certiorari the United States Supreme Court held, affirmed, four justices dissenting. The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent the use in a state court of evidence acquired illegally. Irvine v. People of State of California, 347 U.S. 128, 74 S.Ct. 381 (1954).

Recommended Citation

Howard N. Thiele, Jr., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-SEARCH AND SEIZURE-USE IN STATE COURTS OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY, 52 Mich. L. Rev. 904 (1954).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol52/iss6/10