Giordenello v. United States

Background

Veto Giordenello, accused of buying narcotics, was arrested after a federal agent obtained an arrest warrant based on a brief sworn complaint. The agent followed him, seized a paper bag at the time of arrest, and found heroin inside. Giordenello waived a preliminary hearing before a commissioner, was later tried and convicted, and then asked the courts to suppress the drugs as illegally seized.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Giordenello could later contest the warrant and whether the complaint supported probable cause. It held that waiving the early hearing did not prevent a later challenge to the warrant. The Court found the written complaint defective because it contained no affirmative allegation of the officer’s personal knowledge, no sources, and no factual basis for a commissioner to independently find probable cause. Because the arrest depended on that defective warrant, the Court concluded the seizure was unlawful and the narcotics were inadmissible. The Court declined to consider the Government’s new, belated claim that state law would have justified a warrantless arrest.

Real world impact

The decision means federal arrest complaints must present enough factual detail for a magistrate to assess probable cause, not merely state legal conclusions. People arrested under bare or conclusory complaints may be able to suppress evidence seized at arrest. The Government may still attempt other lawful justifications at a new trial, but evidence obtained solely under the defective warrant must be excluded.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Clark dissented, arguing the complaint did allege possession facts, that confidential sources are common in narcotics cases, and that state-law probable-cause rules could have sustained the arrest.