Pugach v. Dollinger

Background

A man charged with serious crimes in a New York state court asked a federal court to stop prosecutors from using evidence gathered by wiretapping his telephone. He alleged that agents of the District Attorney and the police, acting under a state court warrant, tapped his phone, gave information to a grand jury, and to the press, and planned to use that evidence at his upcoming trial.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court, in a short per curiam decision, affirmed the lower courts on the basis of earlier cases (Schwartz v. Texas and Stefanelli v. Minard). The central question was whether a federal court should issue an injunction to keep wiretap-obtained evidence out of a state criminal trial. The Court refused relief, relying on precedent that generally denies federal courts the power to block state criminal proceedings or to grant preliminary equitable relief of this kind.

Real world impact

As a result, defendants who claim their phones were illegally tapped may be unable to get immediate federal court protection to exclude that evidence at trial. The decision preserves the rule that such pretrial federal intervention is limited, so accused persons may have to rely on state-law remedies, later appeals, or other avenues rather than a federal injunction before trial.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas (joined by the Chief Justice) dissented, arguing that federal wiretap law forbids such interceptions and that the federal courts should enjoin use of the illicit evidence to protect individual privacy.