Conn v. Gabbert
Headline: Court allows prosecutors to have a defense attorney searched while the attorney’s client testifies without creating a constitutional right-to-practice-law claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, limiting challenges to such timing.
Holding: The Court held that prosecutors' directing a search of a defense attorney while the attorney's client testified does not violate the attorney's Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession.
- Limits Fourteenth Amendment claims by attorneys for brief, procedural interruptions during legal process.
- Leaves search challenges to Fourth Amendment review rather than Fourteenth Amendment.
- Does not decide whether specific attorney searches were unreasonable.
Summary
Background
This dispute involved two county prosecutors, a criminal defense lawyer, and the lawyer’s client who was called before a grand jury in the Menendez murder prosecutions. The prosecutors obtained warrants and had the lawyer searched by a court-appointed special master while his client was testifying. The client twice declined to answer questions on the advice of counsel. The lawyer sued the prosecutors under federal civil-rights law, saying the timed search interfered with his ability to practice law.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the timed search violated the lawyer’s Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession. The Justices concluded that brief interruptions caused by legal process do not amount to a Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of the right to pursue a calling. The Court explained that challenges about the reasonableness of a search belong to the Fourth Amendment (search-and-seizure rules), not the Fourteenth. The Court therefore reversed the Ninth Circuit and did not find a Fourteenth Amendment violation here.
Real world impact
After this decision, lawyers cannot automatically claim a Fourteenth Amendment right to practice their profession when a search is timed to occur during a client’s testimony; such complaints should be evaluated under search rules instead. The Court did not decide whether the specific searches were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and it expressed no view on that separate claim.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, agreeing no Fourteenth Amendment violation was shown, noting no evidence of harm to the lawyer or client, and criticizing part of the Court’s suggested reasoning.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?