Balistrieri v. United States

Background

A man convicted of income tax evasion says federal agents used a wide range of unlawful spying on him and his circle. The record shows electronic listening devices secretly placed in his office for over a year, in his lawyer’s office for about six months, and in his secretary’s office-apartment for about eight months. Agents also broke into the secretary’s apartment, photographed private files, and the Post Office ran a mail cover that logged senders and recipients. Some evidence was suppressed and one indictment count was dismissed, but other counts survived trial and appeal.

Reasoning

The central question raised by the dissent is whether later evidence the Government used truly came from an independent, lawful source or instead grew out of the earlier illegal spying. Lower courts concluded that two counts rested on independently obtained evidence, relying in part on a mail cover and other leads. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, so it did not decide whether those leads were cleanly independent or tainted by the earlier misconduct. As a result, the lower courts’ rulings remain in place and the conviction stands pending any future review.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the practical effect is that claims about widespread, unlawful surveillance were not settled by the Nation’s highest court. Investigators’ use of bugs, break-ins, mail covers, and seized documents remains a contested factual and legal matter in this case. The dissent urged review to clarify what standard should block evidence obtained after pervasive illegality, but the Court’s denial leaves those questions unresolved and applies only to this petition for review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Fortas, joined by Justice Douglas, dissented from the denial and would have granted review to address whether later evidence was tainted by the widespread unlawful searches and what burden of proof should apply.