Alderman v. United States - 394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961 (1969)

Rule:

The exclusionary rule excludes from a criminal trial any evidence seized from a defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Fruits of such evidence are excluded as well. Because the amendment affords protection against the uninvited ear, oral statements, if illegally overheard, and their fruits are also subject to suppression.

Facts:

After Petitioners Alderman and Alderisio, along with Ruby Kolod, now deceased , convicted of conspiring to transmit murderous threats in interstate commerce, they discovered that one petitioner's place of business had been subject to electronic surveillance by the Government. This Court refused to accept the Government's ex parte determination that "no overheard conversation in which any of the petitioners participated is arguably relevant to this prosecution," and vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings (390 U.S. 136). The Government moved to modify the order, urging that surveillance records should be subjected to in camera inspection by the trial judge, who would then turn over to petitioners only those materials arguably relevant to their prosecution. In Nos. 11 and 197 petitioners, who were convicted of national security violations, raised similar questions relating to the use of eavesdropped information.

Issue:

Were Alderman et al. entitled to review the surveillance record, without an initial in camera review, in order to discover and produce evidence that the surveillance should have been excluded?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The Court held that the exclusionary rule, which excluded from admission at trial any evidence seized in violation of a defendant's rights, was applicable if respondent unlawfully overheard petitioners' conversations or conversations occurring on petitioners' premises, even if they were not present, or did not participate in, the conversations. The Court further held the surveillance records, to which Alderman et al. had standing to object, were to be turned over without being screened in camera, in order to enable petitioners to find evidence demonstrating the evidence was tainted. Accordingly, the Government’s motion, to the extent it requested an initial in camera review, was denied.