275 U.S. 192 (1927)
For some time prior to October 1, 1924, petitioner Marron leased the entire second floor of 1249 Polk Street in San Francisco.1 On October 1, a prohibition agent obtained a search warrant from a United States commissioner particularly describing intoxicating liquors and articles for their manufacture to be seized at that location.2 The next day, four prohibition agents entered the premises after ringing the doorbell and observed six or seven rooms containing slot machines, an ice box, tables, chairs, and a cash register, where about a dozen men and women were being furnished intoxicating liquors.3 Birdsall was in charge of the place, as Marron was not present at the time.4
The agents presented the warrant to Birdsall and placed him under arrest.5 During the search of a closet containing large quantities of liquor, the agents noticed and seized a ledger showing inventories of liquors, receipts, expenses including gifts to police officers, and other matters relating to the business.6 They also seized bills for gas, electric light, water, and telephone service that were located beside the cash register.7 The return on the search warrant listed only the seizure of the intoxicating liquors and did not mention the ledger or bills.8
On October 17, 1924, Marron, Birdsall, and five others were indicted in the southern division of the northern district of California for conspiring to commit offenses against the National Prohibition Act, including the maintenance of a nuisance at 1249 Polk Street.9 One defendant was never apprehended and one was acquitted, while the rest were found guilty.10 Marron, Birdsall, and two others obtained review in the Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment as to all except Marron, who secured a reversal and new trial.11 8 F. (2d) 251. Marron was again found guilty upon retrial, and the conviction was affirmed.12 18 F. (2d) 218.
Before the first trial, Marron applied to the court for the return of the ledger and bills and to suppress evidence concerning them, but the application was denied.13 At trial, there was evidence that Marron made most of the entries in the ledger and that he was concerned as proprietor or partner in carrying on the business of selling intoxicating liquors.14 The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the book and papers were lawfully seized and admissible, and on the second appeal treated its earlier decision as the law of the case.15
Whether the seizure of the ledger and bills violated the Fourth Amendment because they were not described in the search warrant?16
The Fourth Amendment declares that the right to be secure against unreasonable searches shall not be violated.17 It further declares that no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.18 This requirement makes general searches under warrants impossible.19 It prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another.20 Nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.21
Yes. The search warrant obtained on October 1, 1924, particularly described only the intoxicating liquors and articles for their manufacture to be seized at 1249 Polk Street.22 The prohibition agents seized the ledger showing inventories of liquors and the utility bills that were not mentioned anywhere in the warrant.23 The return made on the search warrant showed only the seizure of the intoxicating liquors and did not mention the discovery or seizure of the ledger or bills.24
This action constitutes the type of general search long deemed to violate fundamental rights under the Fourth Amendment.25 The historical controversies over writs of assistance placed liberty in the hands of every petty officer.26 The decision in Adams v. New York does not support the government's position.27 That prosecution occurred in state court without a timely motion to suppress.28
It applied the rule that courts will not inquire into how evidence was obtained.29 Consequently, the seizure of the ledger and bills cannot be upheld under the authority of the search warrant alone.30
The seizure of the ledger and bills violated the Fourth Amendment because they were not described in the search warrant.31
Whether the seizure of the ledger and bills was justified as an incident to the execution of the search warrant?32
Congress in enacting the laws governing the issue and execution of this search warrant was diligent to limit seizures to things particularly described.33 Section 626 provides that, if it appears that the property or paper taken is not the same as that described in the warrant, the judge or commissioner must cause it to be returned to the person from whom it was taken.34 Section 631 provides for punishment of an officer who willfully exceeds his authority in executing a search warrant.35
No. Although the agents were present on the premises pursuant to the warrant, the statutory framework in Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 611 to 631 requires the executing officer to give a receipt specifying the property in detail.36 The officer must make a verified inventory of only the items described.37 The ledger and bills were not the same as the intoxicating liquors and manufacturing articles named in the warrant.38 Section 626 specifically mandates return of any property not matching the warrant's description.39
This confirms that seizure of undescribed items exceeds the warrant's scope.40 The requirement of particularity in both the Fourth Amendment and the implementing statutes prevents any justification for the seizure based solely on the execution of the warrant for liquors.41
The seizure of the ledger and bills was not justified as an incident to the execution of the search warrant.42
Whether the seizure of the ledger and bills was justified as an incident to the arrest of Birdsall?43
When arrested, Birdsall was actually engaged in a conspiracy to maintain the premises where intoxicating liquors were being unlawfully sold.44 He was in charge of those premises.45 Every such place is by the National Prohibition Act declared to be a common nuisance.46 The officers were authorized to arrest for crime being committed in their presence.47 They lawfully arrested Birdsall.48 They had a right without a warrant contemporaneously to search the place to find and seize the ledger and bills used to carry on the criminal enterprise.49 The authority of officers to search and seize the things by which the nuisance was being maintained extended to all parts of the premises used for the unlawful purpose.50
Yes. Birdsall was placed under arrest after the agents presented the warrant.51 At that time he was in charge of the place being used as a common nuisance for the sale of intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act.52 The ledger was discovered in the closet that formed part of the saloon premises.53
It remained in Birdsall's immediate possession and control even though it was not on his person.54 The bills for gas, electric light, water, and telephone service were found beside the cash register.55 They disclosed items of expense closely related to the business of selling intoxicating liquors.56 These items were part of the outfit or equipment actually used to commit the offense of maintaining the nuisance.57
The authority of officers to search and seize extended to all parts of the premises used for the unlawful purpose.58 It follows that the ledger and bills were lawfully seized as an incident of the arrest of Birdsall.59
The seizure of the ledger and bills was justified as an incident to the arrest of Birdsall.60