Carroll v. United States (1957)

Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394 (1957),[1] was a case dealing with the appealablility of a suppression order issued by the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia for an unlawful warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

Carroll v. United States
Argued April 4, 1957
Decided June 24, 1957
Full case nameLeon F. Carroll and Daniel J. Stewart v. United States
Citations354 U.S. 394 (more)
77 S. Ct. 1332; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1442
Case history
Prior
  • United States v. Hall, 126 F. Supp. 620 (D.D.C. 1955)
  • Reversed sub nom. United States v. Carroll, 234 F.2d 679 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
  • Cert. granted, Carroll v. United States, 352 U.S. 906 (1956)
Holding
The order of suppression of evidence in this case by the District Court is not appealable under the statutes of the federal appeals courts; therefore, the appeal should've been dismissed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black Β· Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas Β· Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark Β· John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. Β· Charles E. Whittaker
Case opinion
MajorityWarren, joined by unanimous

In February of 1957, officers arrested Carroll and Stewart on John Doe arrest warrants for violations of local lottery laws. During the detainment, officers conducted a Search Incident to Arrest and seized evidence from their person. They petitioned the District Court for suppression of the evidence on grounds that the warrants were null and void due to the lack of the Constitutionally required probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[2] The District Court granted the petition. The Government appeals to the Federal Court of Appeals, which reversed the suppression order.


In a unanimous 9-0 opinion written by Justice Warren, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Court of Appeals, stating that:

𝐼𝑑 𝑖𝑠 π‘Žπ‘₯π‘–π‘œπ‘šπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘, π‘Žπ‘  π‘Ž π‘šπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿ π‘œπ‘“ β„Žπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘¦ π‘Žπ‘  𝑀𝑒𝑙𝑙 π‘Žπ‘  π‘‘π‘œπ‘π‘‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘›π‘’, π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ 𝑒π‘₯𝑖𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 π‘œπ‘“ π‘Žπ‘π‘π‘’π‘™π‘™π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’ π‘—π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘–π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘› 𝑖𝑛 π‘Ž 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 π‘“π‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘™ π‘π‘œπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘‘ π‘œπ‘£π‘’π‘Ÿ π‘Ž 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑦𝑝𝑒 π‘œπ‘“ π‘π‘Žπ‘ π‘’ 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑 π‘’π‘π‘œπ‘› π‘Žπ‘’π‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘–π‘‘π‘¦ 𝑒π‘₯π‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ π‘ π‘™π‘¦ π‘π‘œπ‘›π‘“π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘‘ 𝑏𝑦 π‘ π‘‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘π‘’. [3]

The Court held that, although some orders may be appealable under the authority of 18 U.S.C. 1291, this order in this case lacked such authority. The Circuit Court was reversed and remanded.

References
  1. "Carroll vs. United States, 1957". Oyez.
  2. π‘‡β„Žπ‘’ π‘…π‘–π‘”β„Žπ‘‘ π‘œπ‘“ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘ƒπ‘’π‘œπ‘π‘™π‘’ π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒 π‘ π‘’π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’ 𝑖𝑛 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘–π‘Ÿ π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ π‘œπ‘›π‘ , β„Žπ‘œπ‘’π‘ π‘’π‘ , π‘π‘Žπ‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ , π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑑𝑠, π‘Žπ‘”π‘Žπ‘–π‘›π‘ π‘‘ π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘Žπ‘ π‘œπ‘›π‘Žπ‘π‘™π‘’ π‘ π‘’π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘β„Žπ‘’π‘  π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘ π‘’π‘–π‘§π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ , π‘ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘™π‘™ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ 𝑏𝑒 π‘£π‘–π‘œπ‘™π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘; 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒐 π’˜π’‚π’“π’“π’‚π’π’•π’” 𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍 π’Šπ’”π’”π’–π’†, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒖𝒑𝒐𝒏 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆, π‘ π‘’π‘π‘π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘ 𝑏𝑦 π‘œπ‘Žπ‘‘β„Ž π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘Žπ‘“π‘“π‘–π‘Ÿπ‘šπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘›, π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘–π‘π‘’π‘™π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘™π‘¦ π‘‘π‘’π‘ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘π‘™π‘Žπ‘π‘’ π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒 π‘ π‘’π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘β„Žπ‘’π‘‘, π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ π‘œπ‘›π‘  π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘”π‘  π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑. The Fourth Amendment.
  3. Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394 (1957).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.