Angelet v. Fay

Decision Date07 June 1965
Docket NumberNo. 578,578
Citation14 L.Ed.2d 623,381 U.S. 654,85 S.Ct. 1750
PartiesGeorge ANGELET, Petitioner, v. Edward M. FAY, Warden
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Leon B. Polsky, New York City, for petitioner.

Gray Thoron, Ithaca, N.Y., for respondent.

Michael Juviler, New York City, for National Dist. Attys' Ass'n, as amicus curiae.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, decided this date. Petitioner was convicted in a New York State court in 1951 for possession of narcotics with intent to sell. On December 21, 1950, two detectives attached to the Narcotics Squad of the New York City Police Department entered petitioner's apartment by a door opened by a painter who was just leaving. They ignored the protest of petitioner and proceeded, without a warrant, to search the apartment. Upon entering, one of the officers called an agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. After two federal agents arrived the local and federal officers made a thorough search of the apartment. One of the local officers found 54 cellophane envelopes, 106 empty capsules, a box of staples and a scale. A federal agent found four packages under a hat. Analysis revealed that three of the packets contained heroin and the other contained cocaine. These items were introduced in evidence at the state trial without objection of petitioner's counsel. Nor was objection made to the participation of the federal narcotics agents in the investigation. After conviction petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division but the appeal was dismissed in March of 1952.

In August 1961, after Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, was decided, petitioner resorted to state post-conviction remedies claiming that the evidence found in his apartment and introduced against him had been illegally seized and that his conviction had therefore been obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Upon seeking habeas corpus in the United States District Court on the same grounds his application was denied. The trial judge refused to apply Mapp retrospectively. The Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed by a divided vote. 333 F.2d 12. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 815, 85 S.Ct. 126, 13 L.Ed.2d 28 (1964), and set this case for argument with Linkletter, supra. That case answers petitioner's point as to the retrospective application of Mapp.

However, petitioner also contends...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Curry v. Wilson
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 31, 1969
    ...334 F.2d 331, 333 (2d Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Angelet v. Fay, 333 F.2d 12, 16 (2d Cir. 1964), affirmed 381 U.S. 654, 85 S.Ct. 1750, 14 L.Ed.2d 623 (1965). See also Wright & Sofaer, supra, at 961-968; cf. Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 70-71, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (19......
  • United States v. Peltier 8212 2000
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1975
    ...that, on the Court's own deterrence rationale alone, today's suggested reformulation would be a disaster. 14 Angelet v. Fay, 381 U.S. 654, 85 S.Ct. 1750, 14 L.Ed.2d 623 (1965), declined to decide whether Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), would bar federal age......
  • Simpson v. Union Oil Company of California
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 12, 1969
    ...See the discussion in United States ex rel. Angelet v. Fay, 333 F.2d 12, 15-16 (2 Cir. 1964) affirmed sub nom. Angelet v. Fay, 381 U.S. 654, 85 S.Ct. 1750, 14 L.Ed.2d 623 (1965). The Supreme Court has recently said in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1737, 14 L.Ed.2d ......
  • Joe Sterling Et Al. on Habeas Corpus, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 22, 1965
    ...a difference since resolved against retroactive application by Linkletter v. Walker, 85 S.Ct. 1731 (June 7, 1965), and Angelet v. Fay, 85 S.Ct. 1750 (June 7, 1965), there has been no difference of opinion at all as to the application of the ban to judgments subsequent to Mapp. As to these, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT