People of State of California v. Hurst
Decision Date | 27 January 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 18420.,18420. |
Citation | 325 F.2d 891 |
Parties | The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Robert A. Heinze, Warden, et al., Appellant, v. Arthur Lee HURST, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., for the State of Cal.; Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for appellant.
Elke, Farella, & Braun and Jerome I. Braun, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, JERTBERG and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting relief in habeas corpus proceedings to Arthur Lee Hurst, a prisoner of the State of California. On October 8, 1959, Hurst was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles on two counts of possession of narcotics other than marijuana (Calif. Health and Safety Code § 11500). On appeal to the District Court of Appeal of California the conviction was affirmed. 183 Cal.App.2d 379, 6 Cal.Rptr. 483 (July 29, 1960). A petition for habeas corpus was filed with the California Supreme Court and was denied on February 23, 1961. Appellee filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States to review the order of the California Supreme Court denying habeas corpus relief. Certiorari was denied, sub nom. Hurst v. McGee, 368 U.S. 843, 82 S.Ct. 70, 7 L.Ed.2d 41 (October 9, 1961). Appellee filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court on June 18, 1962. The district court granted the writ on the ground that appellee's conviction was based upon evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure, admission of which evidence violated appellee's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Hurst v. People of the State of California, 211 F.Supp. 387 (N.D.Cal.1962).
Jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (3). Jurisdiction of this court rests in the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
The district court's recitation of the facts is not challenged. We hereby adopt and quote that recitation from 211 F. Supp. at 389-390.
Under recent Supreme Court decisions it is clear that the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment render inadmissible in a state criminal trial all evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure,1 and that the legality of a state search and seizure is to be measured, for purposes of the exclusionary rule, by the "fundamental criteria" of the Fourth Amendment.2 Since the exclusionary rule is itself a Constitutional dictate,3 the question of illegal search and seizure by state authorities of evidence for use in a state criminal trial is cognizable by the federal courts on application for a writ of habeas corpus,4 unless there is a state post-conviction remedy still available to the prisoner at the time of filing the application in the federal court.5
The keystone question in the instant case remains unresolved by the Supreme Court: whether the Mapp and Ker cases are to be given retroactive effect where, as here, the search, the trial, the motion to suppress, the denial thereof, the conviction, and the exhaustion or expiration of remedies of direct review occurred prior to June 19, 1961, the date of the Supreme Court's decision in Mapp.
The circuit courts which have passed upon the question are in disagreement. Hall v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 313 F.2d 483 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. den. sub nom. Pepersack v. Hall, 374 U.S. 809, 83 S.Ct. 1693, 10 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1963), held that retroactivity follows from the notion that courts but find and declare the law which has always existed but which may have eluded discovery in previous judicial efforts. Gaitan v. United States, supra, challenged the assertion that the later decisions were always the law as departing from reality. Gaitan denied relief in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 concerning pre-Elkins6 and pre-Mapp "silver platter" evidence. In a habeas corpus proceeding involving a pre-Mapp state court conviction, the court in United States ex rel. Linkletter v. Walker, 323 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1963), denied relief and agreed with the Gaitan decision insofar as it rejected the Hall rationale.
The views of those who disfavor general retroactive application of Mapp are well presented in composite form in the Walker case. Briefly, the argument in that direction runs as follows: Absent both a Constitutional mandate and a clear expression of intent by the Supreme Court, determination of the question should be made by considering the impact of retroactive application upon furtherance of the policy objective of the new interpretation and upon the practical administration of justice. The policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lopez, In re
...Penitentiary (1963) 4 Cir., 313 F.2d 483; United States ex rel. Eastman v. Fay (1963) D.C., 225 F.Supp. 677; People of State of California v. Hurst (1963) 9 Cir., 325 F.2d 891; pet. for cert. filed, 32 U.S.L.Week 3323 (U.S. March 12, 1964) (No. 913, 1963 term; renumbered No. 45, 1964 term).......
-
People v. Arno
....... Cr. 33155. . Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. . March 7, 1979. . As Modified March 20, 1979. . Hearing Denied May 3, 1979. . ...599.) . Given today's state of technology, it is impossible to conceptualize a legally significant difference between ...United States, 223 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1955); People of State of Cal. v. . Page 634 . Hurst, 325 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1963), rev'd on other grounds, 381 U.S. 760, 85 S.Ct. 1796, 14 L.Ed.2d 713 ......
-
People v. Marshall
...of simply suspicious looking or unusual objects does not justify their seizure without a warrant. Thus in People of State of California v. Hurst (9th Cir. 1963) 325 F.2d 891, 898--899 (reversed on other grounds (1965) 381 U.S. 760, 85 S.Ct. 1796, 14 L.Ed.2d 713) the court held a seizure ill......
-
People v. Willard
...of the instant case establish an unlawful invasion of privacy. Defendant urges that the present case is governed by California v. Hurst (9th Cir. 1963) 325 F.2d 891 6 (reversed on other grounds, 381 U.S. 760, 85 S.Ct. 1796, 14 L.Ed.2d 713). It is the position of the Attorney General, on the......