Sgro v. United States

Background

A hotel owner was charged under the National Prohibition Act for possessing and selling liquor at his hotel. A search was done after agents used a warrant that had originally been issued on July 6 based on an affidavit that said a witness bought beer from the owner. The original warrant was not executed within ten days. Agents then returned the warrant to the commissioner, who changed its date to July 27 and the search was carried out. The evidence seized was used at trial and the owner was convicted; the case reached the Court to decide whether that reissued warrant was valid.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether simply redating an expired warrant could make it lawful. The majority explained that the statute requires warrants to be executed within ten days and that a reissued warrant is effectively a new proceeding that must be supported by proof showing probable cause at that later time. Because the commissioner did not take fresh sworn proof or make a finding of probable cause on July 27, the reissued warrant was invalid. The Court therefore reversed the conviction because the search rested on an unlawful warrant.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents law enforcement from reviving expired warrants by merely changing the date. Officials must obtain current sworn proof showing probable cause before issuing a new warrant. Evidence taken under an invalidly reissued warrant cannot be used to support a conviction.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices would have treated the redating as effectively issuing a new, valid warrant supported by the existing affidavit; a separate Justice concurred in reversal and emphasized protecting individuals from stale warrants.