232 U.S. 383 (1914)
In December 1911 a federal indictment containing nine counts was returned against the defendant in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri.1 The seventh count charged use of the mails to transport lottery coupons or tickets in violation of section 213 of the Criminal Code.2
The defendant was arrested without a warrant by a police officer at the Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri, where he was employed by an express company.3 On the same day other police officers went to the defendant's home at 1834 Penn Street, obtained the key from a neighbor, entered the house, searched the defendant's room, and seized papers and articles that were later turned over to the United States Marshal.4 Later the same day the Marshal, accompanied by police officers, returned to the house, was admitted by a boarder, searched the defendant's room, and removed letters and envelopes from a chiffonier drawer.5 Neither the police officers nor the Marshal possessed a search warrant.6
Before trial the defendant filed a verified petition seeking return of the seized property, asserting that the seizure violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.7 The district court ordered return of property it deemed not pertinent to the charge but retained the remainder, which the government stated would be used in evidence.8 After the jury was sworn the defendant renewed the petition, which the court again denied.9 At trial the defendant objected to introduction of the retained papers on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds, the objection was overruled, and the papers—including lottery tickets seized by the police and letters seized by the Marshal—were admitted into evidence.10
The defendant was convicted on the seventh count and sentenced to fine and imprisonment.11 He then prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, assigning as error the refusal to return the property and the admission of the seized papers at trial.12
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a federal court to return to a defendant private papers seized from his home without a warrant upon the defendant's timely pre-trial application?13
The Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures of their houses, papers, and effects, and a federal court must order the return of private papers seized without warrant when the defendant makes a timely pre-trial motion asserting the violation.14
Yes. The established facts show that the United States Marshal entered the defendant's home at 1834 Penn Street without any warrant.15 He gained admission through a boarder and removed letters from a chiffonier drawer for the purpose of obtaining evidence.16
The defendant filed a verified petition before trial seeking return of the seized property on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds.17 The district court denied the petition as to matter it deemed pertinent while ordering return of the rest.18
The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants issue only upon probable cause supported by oath and particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized.19 The Marshal's warrantless invasion of the home to seize private correspondence directly contravened this protection.20 The court therefore should have granted the timely application for return rather than retaining the papers.21
The Fourth Amendment requires a federal court to return to a defendant private papers seized from his home without a warrant upon the defendant's timely pre-trial application.22
Whether papers obtained by federal officers through an unreasonable search and seizure of a defendant's home, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, may be retained by the court and introduced into evidence against the defendant at trial after denial of a seasonable motion for their return?23
Papers seized by federal officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be retained by the court. They may not be introduced into evidence against the defendant at trial when the defendant has made a seasonable motion for their return. Permitting such use would render the constitutional protection of no value.24
No. Under the established facts the Marshal seized the letters without warrant or authority and turned them over to the District Attorney.25 The District Attorney offered them at trial after the court denied the defendant's renewed petition following the swearing of the jury.26
The defendant objected at the time the papers were introduced on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds.27 Yet the court overruled the objection and admitted the lottery tickets and letters into evidence.28
Because the seizure was accomplished by a federal officer acting under color of office without any warrant, the court should have restored the papers to the defendant instead of allowing their evidentiary use.29 Retaining them after the seasonable motion denied the accused the protection secured by the Fourth Amendment.30
Papers obtained by federal officers through an unreasonable search and seizure of a defendant's home in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be retained by the court. They may not be introduced into evidence against the defendant at trial after denial of a seasonable motion for their return.31
Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to seizures of papers conducted by local police officers without any claim of federal authority?32
The Fourth Amendment limits only the federal government and its agencies and does not apply to unauthorized seizures by local police officers acting without federal involvement.33
No. The established facts show that the police officers arrested the defendant and searched his room on the same day as the federal indictment, before any federal proceedings.34 They turned the seized items over to the Marshal without any assertion of federal authority.35
The record does not indicate that the police acted under federal direction or claimed federal power when they obtained the key from a neighbor and seized papers that were later used at trial.36
Because the Fourth Amendment constrains federal action and not individual misconduct by state or local officials, the seizures by the police officers did not violate the amendment.37 The court was not required to order their return on constitutional grounds.38
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to seizures of papers conducted by local police officers without any claim of federal authority.39