Wolf v. Colorado
Encyclopedia
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25
(1949) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that the Fourth Amendment
was applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, the exclusionary rule was not. The Court specified no redressive measures for those whose rights were violated. The Court would address that in the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio
(1961).
of the City and County of Denver of conspiracy
to perform criminal abortions
. On appeal
, the convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Colorado (187 P.2d 926, 928). Wolf appealed the conviction by a writ
of certiorari
and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal.
and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial.
Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the court in this case, in which Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
and Associate Justices Stanley Forman Reed
, Robert H. Jackson
, and Harold Hitz Burton
joined. Associate Justice Hugo Black
wrote a separate concurring opinion.
Writing dissenting opinion
s were Associate Justices William O. Douglas
, Frank Murphy
(in whose opinion Justice Rutledge joined), and Wiley B. Rutledge (in whose opinion Justice Murphy joined).
The main question Justice Felix Frankfurter
considers in his opinion is whether a conviction by a state court that arises out of use of evidence that would not have been admitted in a federal court of law denies the defendant due process
of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
.
This question relates directly to the issue of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Frankfurter states that unlike the requirements regarding administration of criminal justice by federal authority imposed by the Bill of Rights (Amendments I to VIII), the Fourteenth Amendment
does not impose similar limitations upon states. He cites the notion that due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is shorthand for the first eight amendments of the Constitution, and flatly rejects it, commenting that “the issue is closed.”
In considering the restrictions which the Due Process Clause imposes upon states in regards to enforcement of criminal law, the Court does not stray far from the views expressed in Palko v. Connecticut
, . In that decision, Associate Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo
rejected the notion that the Due Process Clause incorporates the original Bill of Rights
.
The Court does go on to find, through its selective incorporation doctrine, that the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause." However, enforcement of this basic right raises further questions, e.g., how to check such police conduct, what remedies are appropriate against it, and so forth.
The important precedent relevant in this case arises from Weeks v. United States
, (1914). The main consequence of the unanimous ruling in Weeks was that in a federal prosecution, the Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. Frankfurter notes, with apparent disapproval, that this 1914 ruling “was not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment,” nor “based on legislation expressing Congressional policy in the enforcement of the Constitution.” However, because the rule has been frequently applied since, “we stoutly adhere to it.”
However, Frankfurter reaffirms, the immediate question at hand is whether this basic right to protection against arbitrary intrusion by the police in a federal case extends to state cases as well. He writes that because most of the English-speaking world “does not regard as vital … the exclusion of evidence such obtained,” the Court must hesitate “to treat this remedy as an essential ingredient of the right.”
Frankfurter writes that although the practice of exclusion of evidence is indeed an efficient way of deterring unlawful searches, the Court cannot condemn other equally effective methods as falling below the minimal standards required by the Due Process Clause. Further, there exist reasons for excluding evidence obtained by the federal police that are less compelling in the case of state or local authority.
He concludes that because of the above reasons, the Court holds that “in a prosecution in a State Court for a State crime, the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure
.”
is “not a command of the Fourth Amendment but is a judicially created rule of evidence which Congress might negate.” He concludes that this implication leads him “to concur in the Court’s judgment of affirmance.”
writes in his dissenting opinion that for the reasons stated by Justice Hugo L. Black in his dissent in Adamson v. California
, he believes that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the States. He agrees with Justice Frank Murphy’s assertion that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded in state as well as in federal prosecutions; in absence of such exclusion, “the Amendment would have no effective sanction.”
takes issue with the majority opinion’s suggestion that there exist alternatives to the exclusionary rule. He complains that this very statement “conveys the impression that one possibility is as effective as the next,” while, in his opinion, there is only one alternative to the rule of exclusion – and that is “no sanction at all.”
Murphy openly questions the Court’s suggestion of self-regulation, scoffing at the notion of expecting “a District Attorney to prosecute himself…for well-meaning violations of the search and seizure clause during a raid the District Attorney…[has] ordered.” Murphy suggests another alternative, somewhat parenthetically, whereas a trespass action for damages could be used as “a venerable means of securing reparation for unauthorized invasion of the home.”
concurs. He rejects the Court’s conclusion that the mandate of the Fourth Amendment, though binding on the states, does not carry with it the sanction of the exclusionary rule. He agrees with Justice Murphy’s assertion that the “Amendment without the sanction is a dead letter.”
He also rejects the Court’s suggestion that Congress could genuinely enact legislation that would permit the use in federal courts of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, noting that this issue had previously – and negatively – been settled in Boyd v. United States
.
Justice Rutledge concludes by saying that the Court makes “the illegality of this search and seizure its inarticulate premise of decision.” He concurs with this premise, and believes that the conviction should be reversed.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1949) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that the Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
was applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, the exclusionary rule was not. The Court specified no redressive measures for those whose rights were violated. The Court would address that in the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio, , was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as...
(1961).
Background of the case
The plaintiff, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted in the District CourtColorado District Courts
Colorado District Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the U.S. state of Colorado.They have original jurisdiction in civil cases with any amount in controversy; felony criminal cases, domestic relations, family law, and cases involving minors cases , probate, and mental health...
of the City and County of Denver of conspiracy
Conspiracy (crime)
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement...
to perform criminal abortions
Abortion in the United States
Abortion in the United States has been legal in every state since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973...
. On appeal
Appeal
An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision....
, the convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Colorado (187 P.2d 926, 928). Wolf appealed the conviction by a writ
Writ
In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court...
of certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal.
Court's decision
The essential question presented before the Court was whether states are required by the Fourth AmendmentFourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial.
Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.-Early life:Frankfurter was born into a Jewish family on November 15, 1882, in Vienna, Austria, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Europe. He was the third of six children of Leopold and Emma Frankfurter...
delivered the opinion of the court in this case, in which Chief Justice
Chief Justice of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice is one of nine Supreme Court justices; the other eight are the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States...
Fred M. Vinson
Fred M. Vinson
Frederick Moore Vinson served the United States in all three branches of government and was the most prominent member of the Vinson political family. In the legislative branch, he was an elected member of the United States House of Representatives from Louisa, Kentucky, for twelve years...
and Associate Justices Stanley Forman Reed
Stanley Forman Reed
Stanley Forman Reed was a noted American attorney who served as United States Solicitor General from 1935 to 1938 and as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1938 to 1957. He was the last Supreme Court Justice who did not graduate from law school Stanley Forman Reed (December 31,...
, Robert H. Jackson
Robert H. Jackson
Robert Houghwout Jackson was United States Attorney General and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court . He was also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials...
, and Harold Hitz Burton
Harold Hitz Burton
Harold Hitz Burton was an American politician and lawyer.He served as the 45th mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, as a U.S. Senator from Ohio, and as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was known as a dispassionate jurist who prized equal justice under the law.-Biography:He...
joined. Associate Justice Hugo Black
Hugo Black
Hugo Lafayette Black was an American politician and jurist. A member of the Democratic Party, Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme...
wrote a separate concurring opinion.
Writing dissenting opinion
Dissenting opinion
A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment....
s were Associate Justices William O. Douglas
William O. Douglas
William Orville Douglas was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days, he is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court...
, Frank Murphy
Frank Murphy
William Francis Murphy was a politician and jurist from Michigan. He served as First Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Eastern Michigan District , Recorder's Court Judge, Detroit . Mayor of Detroit , the last Governor-General of the Philippines , U.S...
(in whose opinion Justice Rutledge joined), and Wiley B. Rutledge (in whose opinion Justice Murphy joined).
Frankfurter's opinion for the majority
In its 6-to-3 decision, the Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. It stated that although exclusion of evidence is indeed an effective way of discouraging and preventing unreasonable searches, there exist other methods that can achieve the same effect while complying with the minimal standards set by the Due Process Clause. As an example, the Court suggested civil remedies, such as “the internal discipline of the police, under the eyes of an alert public opinion.”The main question Justice Felix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.-Early life:Frankfurter was born into a Jewish family on November 15, 1882, in Vienna, Austria, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Europe. He was the third of six children of Leopold and Emma Frankfurter...
considers in his opinion is whether a conviction by a state court that arises out of use of evidence that would not have been admitted in a federal court of law denies the defendant due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
.
This question relates directly to the issue of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Frankfurter states that unlike the requirements regarding administration of criminal justice by federal authority imposed by the Bill of Rights (Amendments I to VIII), the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
does not impose similar limitations upon states. He cites the notion that due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is shorthand for the first eight amendments of the Constitution, and flatly rejects it, commenting that “the issue is closed.”
In considering the restrictions which the Due Process Clause imposes upon states in regards to enforcement of criminal law, the Court does not stray far from the views expressed in Palko v. Connecticut
Palko v. Connecticut
Palko v. Connecticut, , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.-Background:...
, . In that decision, Associate Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo
Benjamin N. Cardozo
Benjamin Nathan Cardozo was a well-known American lawyer and associate Supreme Court Justice. Cardozo is remembered for his significant influence on the development of American common law in the 20th century, in addition to his modesty, philosophy, and vivid prose style...
rejected the notion that the Due Process Clause incorporates the original Bill of Rights
Bill of rights
A bill of rights is a list of the most important rights of the citizens of a country. The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement. The term "bill of rights" originates from England, where it referred to the Bill of Rights 1689. Bills of rights may be entrenched or...
.
The Court does go on to find, through its selective incorporation doctrine, that the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause." However, enforcement of this basic right raises further questions, e.g., how to check such police conduct, what remedies are appropriate against it, and so forth.
The important precedent relevant in this case arises from Weeks v. United States
Weeks v. United States
In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment...
, (1914). The main consequence of the unanimous ruling in Weeks was that in a federal prosecution, the Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. Frankfurter notes, with apparent disapproval, that this 1914 ruling “was not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment,” nor “based on legislation expressing Congressional policy in the enforcement of the Constitution.” However, because the rule has been frequently applied since, “we stoutly adhere to it.”
However, Frankfurter reaffirms, the immediate question at hand is whether this basic right to protection against arbitrary intrusion by the police in a federal case extends to state cases as well. He writes that because most of the English-speaking world “does not regard as vital … the exclusion of evidence such obtained,” the Court must hesitate “to treat this remedy as an essential ingredient of the right.”
Frankfurter writes that although the practice of exclusion of evidence is indeed an efficient way of deterring unlawful searches, the Court cannot condemn other equally effective methods as falling below the minimal standards required by the Due Process Clause. Further, there exist reasons for excluding evidence obtained by the federal police that are less compelling in the case of state or local authority.
He concludes that because of the above reasons, the Court holds that “in a prosecution in a State Court for a State crime, the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure
Search and seizure
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime.Some countries have...
.”
Black's concurrence
In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Hugo L. Black notes that as per his previous dissents, he agrees that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizure is enforceable against the states. He writes that he would be in favor of the reversal of the decision of the lower courts if he thought that the Fourth Amendment, by itself, barred not only unreasonable searches and seizures, but also the use of evidence so obtained. However, he agrees with the implication evident from the Court’s opinion in that the federal exclusionary ruleExclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law...
is “not a command of the Fourth Amendment but is a judicially created rule of evidence which Congress might negate.” He concludes that this implication leads him “to concur in the Court’s judgment of affirmance.”
Douglas' dissent
Associate Justice William O. DouglasWilliam O. Douglas
William Orville Douglas was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days, he is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court...
writes in his dissenting opinion that for the reasons stated by Justice Hugo L. Black in his dissent in Adamson v. California
Adamson v. California
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Its decision is part of a long line of cases that eventually led to the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.-Background:In Adamson v...
, he believes that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the States. He agrees with Justice Frank Murphy’s assertion that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded in state as well as in federal prosecutions; in absence of such exclusion, “the Amendment would have no effective sanction.”
Murphy's dissent
In his dissent opinion, with which Justice Wiley B. Rutledge concurs, Associate Justice Frank MurphyFrank Murphy
William Francis Murphy was a politician and jurist from Michigan. He served as First Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Eastern Michigan District , Recorder's Court Judge, Detroit . Mayor of Detroit , the last Governor-General of the Philippines , U.S...
takes issue with the majority opinion’s suggestion that there exist alternatives to the exclusionary rule. He complains that this very statement “conveys the impression that one possibility is as effective as the next,” while, in his opinion, there is only one alternative to the rule of exclusion – and that is “no sanction at all.”
Murphy openly questions the Court’s suggestion of self-regulation, scoffing at the notion of expecting “a District Attorney to prosecute himself…for well-meaning violations of the search and seizure clause during a raid the District Attorney…[has] ordered.” Murphy suggests another alternative, somewhat parenthetically, whereas a trespass action for damages could be used as “a venerable means of securing reparation for unauthorized invasion of the home.”
Rutledge's dissent
Associate Justice Wiley B. Rutledge writes a dissenting opinion, with which Justice Frank MurphyFrank Murphy
William Francis Murphy was a politician and jurist from Michigan. He served as First Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Eastern Michigan District , Recorder's Court Judge, Detroit . Mayor of Detroit , the last Governor-General of the Philippines , U.S...
concurs. He rejects the Court’s conclusion that the mandate of the Fourth Amendment, though binding on the states, does not carry with it the sanction of the exclusionary rule. He agrees with Justice Murphy’s assertion that the “Amendment without the sanction is a dead letter.”
He also rejects the Court’s suggestion that Congress could genuinely enact legislation that would permit the use in federal courts of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, noting that this issue had previously – and negatively – been settled in Boyd v. United States
Boyd v. United States
Boyd v. United States, , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “a search and seizure [was] equivalent [to] a compulsory production of a man's private papers” and that the search was “an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”In the...
.
Justice Rutledge concludes by saying that the Court makes “the illegality of this search and seizure its inarticulate premise of decision.” He concurs with this premise, and believes that the conviction should be reversed.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 338
- Weeks v. United StatesWeeks v. United StatesIn Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment...
- Palko v. ConnecticutPalko v. ConnecticutPalko v. Connecticut, , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.-Background:...
- Adamson v. CaliforniaAdamson v. CaliforniaAdamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Its decision is part of a long line of cases that eventually led to the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.-Background:In Adamson v...
- Boyd v. United StatesBoyd v. United StatesBoyd v. United States, , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “a search and seizure [was] equivalent [to] a compulsory production of a man's private papers” and that the search was “an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”In the...
- Mapp v. OhioMapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio, , was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as...