Criminal Procedure Andresen v. Maryland PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal Procedure 2020 Lecture Notes: Case Brief on Andresen v MD...

Description

Criminal Procedure Chapter 23 Case Brief

Andresen v. Maryland United States Supreme Court 427 U.S. 463 (1976) Facts: In 1972, a real estate attorney named Peter Andresen (defendant) came under investigation for fraud. The investigation revealed that Andresen had defrauded the purchaser of Lot 13T by claiming the property was free of encumbrances and did not require title insurance even though Andresen knew that there were two existing liens. The purchaser had to stop construction when the lienholders threatened foreclosure. Andresen then defrauded the title-insurance company he worked for and issued an insurance policy to the purchaser warranting clear title on the land. The investigators were able to show probable cause, and a judge with the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Montgomery County issued warrants to search Andresen’s law and corporate offices for documents concerning the sale of Lot 13T. On October 31, 1972, the offices were searched, and numerous files were seized. Andresen was criminally charged with false pretenses and fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary. At trial, Andresen moved to suppress the seized documents. He argued that the phrase “together with other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this (time) unknown” at the end of the document lists in the warrants rendered them “general” warrants, which are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The motion was denied. Andresen was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to eight two-year prison terms, running concurrently. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the validity of the search warrants. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Issue: Does the addition of a catchall phrase to a list of items to be searched for and seized render an otherwise valid warrant a “general” warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Rule: The addition of a catchall phrase to a list of items to be searched for and seized in a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s specificity requirement so long as it is limited by the language of the warrant to items relating to a specific crime. Analysis & Holding: No. The Fourth Amendment requires that search warrants specifically list and describe the items to be seized and limits seizures to those items. Accordingly, general warrants allowing police to rifle through an individual’s property at their discretion looking for any type of evidence of any crime are forbidden. However, the addition of a catchall phrase to a list of items to be searched for and seized in a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s specificity requirement so long as it is limited by the language of the warrant to items relating to a specific crime. In this case, Andresen asserts that the phrase “together with other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this (time) unknown” turns the otherwise lawful search warrants into “general” search warrants prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. However, this argument requires reading the phrase in isolation and out of context. The catchall phrase comes at the end of a list of items all limited by the preceding part of the sentence authorizing the search for documents related to the sale of Lot 13T. The search for evidence of any other crime was not sanctioned. Searching for documents to demonstrate the occurrence of complex crimes presents unique privacy concerns, but it is the duty of the governmental officials involved to ensure that these searches are handled with as little damage to legitimate privacy interests as possible. The search warrants in this case were sufficiently specific and do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Dissent (Brennan): The sweeping catchall contained in the warrants violated the Fourth Amendment’s specificity requirement. The Court’s construction restricting the authorization to items related to the false-pretenses charge on Lot 13T was not available to the officials conducting the search, and the large number of seized items suppressed at trial is evidence that this was a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Takeaways from Class: Supreme Court approved the phrase “ . . . other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime . . . ,” so the phrase used here may avoid impermissible vagueness....