Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States
| Decision Date | 26 January 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 358,358 |
| Citation | 64 L.Ed. 319,251 U.S. 385,40 S.Ct. 182 |
| Parties | SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO., Inc., et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney and Myer Cohen, both of Washington, D. C., and William D. Guthrie, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 385-390 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error brought to reverse a judgment of the District Court fining the Silverthorne Lumber Company two hundred and fifty dollars for contempt of court and ordering Frederick W. Silverthorne to be imprisoned until he should purge himself of a similar contempt. The contempt in question was a refusal to obey subpoenas and an order of Court to produce books and documents of the company before the grand jury to be used in regard to alleged violation of the statutes of the United States by the said Silverthorne and his father. One ground of the refusal was that the order of the Court infringed the rights of the parties under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The facts are simple. An indictment upon a single specific charge having been brought against the two Silverthornes mentioned, they both were arrested at their homes early in the morning of February 25, and were detained in custody a number of hours. While they were thus detained representatives of the Department of Justice and the United States marshal without a shadow of authority went to the office of their company and made a clean sweep of all the books, papers and documents found there. All the employes were taken or directed to go to the office of the District Attorney of the United States to which also the books, &c., were taken at once. An application was made as soon as might be to the District Court for a return of what thus had been taken unlawfully. It was opposed by the District Attorney so far as he had found evidence against the plaintiffs in error, and it was stated that the evidence so obtained was before the grand jury. Color had been given by the District Attorney to the approach of those concerned in the act by an invalid subpoena for certain documents relating to the charge in the indictment then on file. Thus the case is not that of knowledge acquired through the wrongful act of a stranger, but it must be assumed that the Government planned or at all events ratified the whole performance. Photographs and copies of material papers were made and a new indictment was framed based upon the knowledge thus obtained. The District Court ordered a return of the originals but impounded the photographs and copies. Subpoenas to produce the originals then were served and on the refusal of the plaintiffs in error to produce them the Court made an order that the subpoenas should be complied with, although it had found that all the papers had been seized in violation of the parties' constitutional rights. The refusal to obey...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Laster
...of the prior illegality. In re R.P.S. , 191 Mont. 275, 279, 623 P.2d 964, 967 (1981) (citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S. Ct. 182, 183, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920) ); Murray , 487 U.S. at 537-43, 108 S. Ct. at 2533-36 ; Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 487-88, 83 S. Ct.......
-
People v. Sesslin
...83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081; Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States (1920) 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 598, 55 Cal.Rptr. 897, 422 P.2d 585; People v. Bilderbach (......
-
People v. Disbrow
... ... (Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652.) The first case ... As said in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States ... (251 U.S. 385), 392, 40 S.Ct. (182) 183 ... ...
-
State v. Moore
...been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution, nor as a defense to a valid conviction. The exclusionary principle of Wong Sun and Silverthorne Lumber Co.[10 ] delimits what proof the Government may offer against the accused at trial, closing the courtroom door to evidence secured by offici......
-
Table of Cases
...Seattle , 387 U.S. 541 (1967), Form 3-D Shedelbower v. Estelle , 885 F.2d 570 (1989), Form 3-C Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385 (1920), Form 3-D Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735 (1979), Form 3-D Spinelli v. United States , 393 U.S. 410 (1969), Form 3-D State v. Brenna......
-
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
...Seizures, Stops and Frisks Form 5-1 U.S. 721 (1969); Wong Sun v . United States , 371 U.S. 471 (1963); SilvertClient v. United States , 251 U.S. 385 (1920); State v. Brady , 130 Wis. 2d 443, 388 N.W.2d 151 (1986); State v. Smith , 131 Wis. 2d 220, 388 N.W.2d 601 (1986); State v. Flynn , 92 ......
-
The Origin of Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution
...v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 (1921); Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 303-06 (1921); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920); Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 (1914); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 194. See Gibbons, 118 Wash, at 184-89, 203 P. at ......
-
Searches of the home
...the integrity of the judicial process. See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920); Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). It is also instructive that Massachusetts has never adopted the ‘good faith’ exception to th......