Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States, No. 358
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 64 L.Ed. 319,251 U.S. 385,40 S.Ct. 182 |
| Parties | SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO., Inc., et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Docket Number | No. 358 |
| Decision Date | 26 January 1920 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
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]
Page 390
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
Page 391
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Medina, EP-19-CR-3333-PRM
...search constitutes "fruit of the poisonous tree," and must be excluded. Reply 2; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the Government has met its burden of establishing that Defen......
-
U.S. v. Hoang Anh Thi Duong, No. CR. 01-126-A.
...violation." Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); see Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). In the context of a tainted affidavit, the affidavit essentially is regarded to be an independent lawful......
-
Williams v. State, No. 4 Sept. Term, 2002.
...307 (1939)(finding that attenuation can purge evidence of the taint of government illegality); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 183, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)(finding that illegally obtained evidence can be admitted if an independent source also led polic......
-
United States v. Nelson, No. 71-1155
...tree." See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 Under these circumstances we can see no basis for holding that the warrant obtained by Inspector Boatright was valid or ......
-
United States v. Medina, EP-19-CR-3333-PRM
...search constitutes "fruit of the poisonous tree," and must be excluded. Reply 2; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the Government has met its burden of establishing that Defen......
-
U.S. v. Bin Laden, No. S(7) 98 CR.1023(LBS).
...93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). Accord Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920), extends Weeks to prevent police from using the fruits of illegally seized evidence. See id. at 392, 34 S.......
-
U.S. v. Hoang Anh Thi Duong, No. CR. 01-126-A.
...violation." Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); see Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). In the context of a tainted affidavit, the affidavit essentially is regarded to be an independent lawful......
-
Williams v. State, No. 4 Sept. Term, 2002.
...307 (1939)(finding that attenuation can purge evidence of the taint of government illegality); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 183, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)(finding that illegally obtained evidence can be admitted if an independent source also led polic......
-
A SOLUTION FOR THE THIRD-PARTY DOCTRINE IN A TIME OF DATA SHARING, CONTACT TRACING, AND MASS SURVEILLANCE.
...274 U.S. 559, 563 (1927)). (301) Id, at 359. (302) Id. at 352 (footnotes omitted) (first citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920); then citing Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960); and then citing Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (303) Smith, 442 U.S. a......
-
The Fourth Amendment and General Law.
...through unreasonable searches or seizures by federal agents was inadmissible in federal court); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920) (extending the exclusion remedy to the indirect use of illegally seized (33.) See, e.g., Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (......
-
THE CORROSIVE EFFECT OF INEVITABLE DISCOVERY ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
...it can be said that the fruit not only grows from the poisonous tree, but also grows from another, non-poisonous tree."). (23) See 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920) ("If knowledge of [facts illegally obtained] is gained from an independent source they may be proved like any others, but the knowledge......
-
The Exclusionary Rule and Judicial Integrity: An Empirical Study of Public Perceptions of the Exclusionary Rule.
...v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (40) 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). (41) Id. (42) Id. at 484. (43) 364 U.S. at 208, 222. (44) Id. (45) Id. at 223. (4......