365 U.S. 458 (1961), 111, Pugach v. Dollinger
|Docket Nº:||No. 111|
|Citation:||365 U.S. 458, 81 S.Ct. 650, 5 L.Ed.2d 678|
|Party Name:||Pugach v. Dollinger|
|Case Date:||February 27, 1961|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Argued January 16, 1961
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
A federal court may not enjoin the use in a criminal trial in a state court of evidence obtained by wiretapping in violation of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act. Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U.S. 199; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117.
277 F.2d 739 affirmed.
Per curiam opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN would also affirm, but solely on the authority of Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117.
DOUGLAS, J., dissenting
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs, dissenting.
In Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U.S. 199, a pawnbroker was convicted as an accomplice in a robbery. Records of his telephone conversations, gotten by police eavesdropping, were admitted in evidence against him during his trial in the state court. He claimed that such evidence was inadmissible under 47 U.S.C. § 605.1 This Court rejected that claim without even stopping to see if indeed there had been a violation of the federal statute. The rationale of that rejection was that,
Where a state has carefully legislated so as not to render inadmissible evidence obtained and sought to be divulged in violation of the laws of the United States, this Court will not extend by implication the statute of the United States so as to invalidate the specific language of the state statute.
The later decision of this Court in Benanti v. United States, 355 U.S. 96, swept away that rationale, and Schwartz v. Texas, supra, today stands alone as an aberration from the otherwise vigorous enforcement this Court has given to the congressional policy embodied in 47 U.S.C. § 605. For, in Benanti, in setting aside a federal conviction, we held that the proscription of wiretapping contained in § 605 forbade wiretapping by an authorized executive officer of the State, acting under the explicit terms of a state statute and pursuant to a warrant issued
by the state judiciary.
[K]eeping in mind [the] comprehensive scheme of interstate regulation and the public policy underlying Section 605 as part of that scheme, we find that Congress, setting out a prohibition in plain terms, did not mean to allow state legislation which would contradict that section and that policy.
Id., 105-106. It seems incongruous to me that this sweeping congressional purpose [81 S.Ct. 651] should now be held to make a detour around the precincts of a state court. This is especially true where, as here, officials have shown such an avid taste for violating the law. See Dash, Schwartz and Knowlton, The Eavesdroppers, pp. 68-69. In such circumstances, redress -- other than by an exclusionary rule -- against the criminal acts of those who bear the badge of the law is neither easy nor generous. Cf. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 41, 42-44 (dissenting opinion).
Yet today a majority of this Court summarily holds that Schwartz v. Texas, supra, is still the law, and petitioner is left only with the consoling knowledge that Congress meant to protect the privacy of his telephone conversations,2 while the benefits of the congressional intendment are denied him.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP