02 Us V Rabinowitz 6l734b

United States v. Rabinowitz 339 U.S. 56 (1950) DOCTRINE Warrantless searches immediately following an arrest is constitutional. CASE BRIEF The decision overturned Trupiano v. United States (1948), which had banned such searches. Albert J. Rabinowitz was arrested in his office on February 16, 1943, for selling forged US postage stamps to an undercover federal officer. Federal agents then conducted a warrantless, ninety-minute search of the office, finding an additional 573 forged stamps. Court voted 5-3 convicting Rabinowitz. Writing for the majority, Justice Sherman Minton wrote that only "unreasonable" searches were banned under the Fourth Amendment; searching the office of a suspected forger at the site of his lawful arrest was held to be reasonable. FACTS:  On February 1, 1943, a printer who possessed plates for forging "overprints" on canceled stamps was taken into custody.  He disclosed that respondent, a dealer in stamps, was one of the customers to whom he had delivered large numbers of stamps bearing forged overprints.  On February 6, 1943, a postal employee was sent to respondent's place of business to buy stamps bearing overprints and the experts confirmed that the said stamps were forgeries.  Later, a warrant for the arrest of respondent was obtained.  Armed with this valid warrant for arrest, the Government officers, accompanied by two stamp experts, went to respondent's place of business, a one-room office open to the public.  The officers thereupon arrested the respondent, and over his objection searched the desk, safe, and file cabinets in the office for about an hour and a half. They found and seized 573 stamps, on which it was later determined that overprints had been forged, along with some other stamps which were subsequently returned to respondent.  He was convicted, but a US Court of Appeals later reversed the verdict, ruling that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution had been violated. ISSUE The question presented here is the reasonableness of a search without a search warrant of a place of business consisting of a one-room office, incident to a valid arrest. HELD: Search is VALID. RATIO The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, ed by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized…. It is unreasonable searches that are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment." The Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. The search may be of the person arrested and of the premises where the arrest occurs. A search without warrant incident to an arrest is dependent initially on a valid arrest.

Thus in Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30, this Court stated: "The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody, is not to be doubted." “The right… stemmed not only from the acknowledged authority to search the person, but also from the long-standing practice of searching for other proofs of guilt within the control of the accused found upon arrest.” “The mandate of the Fourth Amendment is that the people shall be secure against unreasonable searches. It is not disputed that there may be reasonable searches, incident to an arrest, without a search warrant.” DISSENTING MR. JUSTICE BLACK “The present case comes within that rule: the trial court itted certain evidence procured by a search and seizure without a search warrant although the officers had ample time and opportunity to get one.”