Nathanson v. United States

Background

A man charged in a criminal case challenged the use of bottles of imported liquor seized from his private home. A customs agent swore an affidavit saying he had “cause to suspect and does believe” the liquor was unlawfully in the house, and a state judge issued a search warrant under a provision of the Tariff Act. The defendant lost at trial and on appeal when the lower court upheld the search and allowed the seized goods into evidence.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a warrant to search a private dwelling can rest on a bare assertion of suspicion. The Court explained that the Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and requires that warrants be based on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. The Tariff Act language used in the affidavit did not supply facts or circumstances showing probable cause; it merely stated belief and suspicion. The Court rejected the lower court’s view that revenue or tariff statutes allow warrants based only on suspicion and concluded the warrant was invalid.

Real world impact

Because the warrant lacked sworn facts showing probable cause, the Court reversed the judgment and the evidence seized under that warrant could not be used against the defendant. Going forward, officers seeking warrants to search private homes under tariff, revenue, or other statutes must present factual statements under oath supporting probable cause. This decision emphasizes constitutional protection against warrantless or fact-free searches of private dwellings.