Alderman v. United States

Background

Several defendants had criminal convictions that were later revealed to rest in part on evidence gathered by electronic eavesdropping. The Government admitted it had overheard conversations connected to one defendant’s business. The Supreme Court sent the cases back to trial judges to sort out whether the surveillance violated anyone’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy and whether any convictions were tainted by that surveillance.

Reasoning

The central question was who can object to using evidence that came from unlawful electronic surveillance and how courts should handle the surveillance records. The Court ruled that only people whose own Fourth Amendment privacy was invaded may move to suppress the evidence — either because their conversations were overheard or because the surveillance occurred on their premises. The Court rejected the broader claim that co-defendants could automatically object. The Court also denied the Government’s request to let judges first comb the surveillance files in secret and withhold materials; instead, relevant surveillance records must be disclosed to defendants with a valid privacy claim so they can challenge any taint to their convictions.

Real world impact

District Courts must hold hearings, examine the recordings or transcripts, and decide whether surveillance violated a defendant’s rights and whether convictions were tainted. If a conviction is found tainted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial; if not, the conviction may stand. The Court endorsed protective orders to limit further disclosure but made clear the defendant gets access when his own privacy was invaded.

Dissents or concurrances

Some Justices argued different limits: one view would allow standing only to people who actually participated in the overheard conversation, another would give standing to anyone who was the target of the investigation and would permit limited in camera review for national security concerns.