408 F.2d 1186, 1196. 399 U. S. 46-47. Facts: A service station was robbed by two men. U.S. 347, 356 It seems to me that what this record reveals about counsel's handling of the search and seizure claims and about the tenor of his cross-examination of the government witness Havicon, when coupled with his late entry into the case, called for more exploration by the District Court before petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim could be dismissed. a. impoundment before search. Mr. Tamburo asked whether, at a pretrial lineup, a detective had not told Havicon that petitioner "was the man with the gun." . Petitioner was one of the men in the station wagon. Chambers v. Maroney case brief summary 399 U.S. 42 (1970) CASE SYNOPSIS. . Where this is true, as in Carroll and the case before us now, if an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search. . But the Court of Appeals found harmless any error in the admission of the bullets, and ruled that the guns and other materials seized from the car were admissible evidence. if the officers had PC to believe that the fruits and instrumentalities of crime would be found inside? Hence, an immediate search is constitutionally permissible. As for federal prisoners, a divided Court held that relief under 28 U.S.C. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ] It was not unreasonable in this case to take the car to the station house. The counsel claim was not presented at trial but was raised and rejected in the state collateral proceedings. [Footnote 1] His first trial ended in a mistrial, but he was convicted of both robberies at the second trial. In sustaining the search of the automobile I believe the Court ignores the framework of our past decisions circumscribing the scope of permissible search without a warrant. 335 It is relevant to note here that petitioner Chambers at trial made no objection to the introduction of the items seized from the car; however his Fourth Amendment claims with respect to the auto search were raised and passed on by the Pennsylvania courts in the state habeas corpus proceeding. See, e. g., Mancusi v. DeForte, (1925). However, where nothing in the situation makes impracticable the obtaining of a warrant, I cannot join the Court in shunting aside that vital Fourth Amendment safeguard. 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 59. But which is the "greater" and which the "lesser" intrusion is itself a debatable question, and the answer may depend on a variety. 338 We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. 3, 1970). [   [Footnote 6]. ] The absence of any request by counsel for a continuance of the trial should not, in my opinion, serve to vitiate petitioner's claim at this juncture. U.S. 581, 584 On the facts before us, the blue station wagon could have been searched on the spot when it was stopped since there was probable cause to search and it was a fleeting target for a search. Arguably, because of the preference for a magistrate's judgment, only the immobilization of the car should be permitted until a search warrant is obtained; arguably, only the "lesser" intrusion is permissible until the magistrate authorizes the "greater." U.S. 42, 62] As the Court acknowledges, petitioner met Mr. Tamburo, his trial counsel, for the first time en route to the courtroom on the morning of trial. Petitioner was one of four men arrested after the auto in which they were riding was stopped by police shortly after an armed robbery of a service station. Ante, at 51-52. [399 The claim that Mr. Tamburo Unquestionably, the courts should make every effort to effect early appointments of counsel in all cases. Brief for Respondent 13. (The facts of the case and the constitutional issues involved are discussed in the opinion of the lower state court in a post-conviction hearing proceeding, aff'd per curiam, Commonwealth ex rel. Although a different Legal Aid Society attorney had represented petitioner at his first trial, apparently neither he nor anyone else from the society had conferred with petitioner in the interval between trials. While "the Constitution nowhere specifies any period which must intervene between the required appointment of counsel and trial," the Court has recognized that. [399 In any event, as we point out below, the validity of an arrest is not necessarily determinative of the right to search a car if there is probable cause to make the search. But the circumstances that, furnish probable cause to search a particular auto for particular articles are most often unforeseeable; moreover, the opportunity to search is fleeting, since a car is readily movable. Glasser v. United States, 1969). Petitioner was one of the men in the station wagon. n. 2 (1965); United States v. Rabinowitz, The materials taken from the car and the bullets seized from petitioner's home were introduced in evidence, and petitioner was convicted of robbery of both service stations. U.S. 42, 47] [Footnote 2/7] I cannot agree that this result is consistent. His first trial ended in a mistrial but he was convicted of both robberies at the second trial. U.S. 42, 64] 342 -586 (1948). objection only on their asserted irrelevance. Even so, the search that produced the incriminating evidence was made at the police station some time after the arrest, and cannot be justified as a search incident to an arrest: "Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place, without a warrant, is simply not incident to the arrest.". 408 F.2d 1186, 1196.   In the first place, as this case shows, the very facts establishing probable cause to search will often (1968), is to the same effect; the reasons that have been thought sufficient to justify warrantless searches carried out in connection with an. Brinegar v. United States,   After Havicon's negative answer, this colloquy ensued: On this state of the record the Court of Appeals ruled that, although the late appointment of counsel necessitated close scrutiny into the effectiveness of his representation, petitioner "was not prejudiced by the late appointment of counsel" because neither of the Fourth Amendment claims belatedly raised justified reversal of   But until the Court adopts that view, I regard myself as obligated to consider the merits of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in a case of this kind. U.S. 286, 307 This Court recognized long ago that the duty to provide counsel "is not discharged by an assignment at such a time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case." U.S. 694 Nevertheless, the Court approves the searches without even an inquiry into the officers' ability promptly to take their case before a magistrate. (1968), that a warrantless search in a "stop and frisk" situation must "be strictly circumscribed Brief for Respondent 13. [399 (1949); Scher v. United States, The circumstances relevant to this. The court proceeded to overrule the objection on the ground that it had not been made in a pretrial motion, adding that "I think there is reasonable ground for making a search here, even without a Warrant." Similarly, we held in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), that a warrantless search in a "stop and frisk" situation must "be strictly circumscribed. Any intrusion beyond what is necessary for the personal safety of the officer or others nearby is forbidden. U.S., at 221 [399 U.S., at 366 339 399 U.S. 42. The Court holds that those steps include making a warrantless search of the entire vehicle on the highway -- a conclusion reached by the Court in Carroll without discussion -- and indeed appears to go further and to condone the removal of the car to the police station for a warrantless search there at the convenience of the police. U.S. 759 (1968); Warden v. Hayden, In the case before us, no claim is made that state law authorized that the station wagon be held as evidence or as an instrumentality of the crime; nor was the station wagon an abandoned or stolen vehicle. The Court of Appeals dealt with the claim that the attorney's lack of preparation resulted in the failure to exclude the guns and ammunition by finding harmless error in the admission of the bullets and ruling that the materials seized from the car were admissible in evidence, and concluded that the claim of prejudice from substitution of counsel was without substantial basis.   The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 408 F.2d 1186, and we granted certiorari, [Footnote 2/5]. . See Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364 (1964). , 708 (1948). In Carroll v. United States, Arguably, because of the preference for a magistrate's judgment, only the immobilization of the car should be permitted until a search warrant is obtained; arguably, only the "lesser" intrusion is permissible until the magistrate authorizes the "greater." The car was driven to a police station, where a search disclosed two revolvers, one loaded with dumdum bullets, and cards bearing the name of an attendant at another service station who had been robbed at gunpoint a week earlier. Although a different Legal Aid Society attorney had represented petitioner at his first trial, apparently neither he nor anyone else from the society had conferred with petitioner in the interval between trials.   1975. The email address cannot be subscribed. As the Court noted: "Our holding today is of course entirely consistent with the recognized principle that, assuming the existence of probable cause, automobiles and other vehicles may be searched without warrants", "where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. A careful search at that point was impractical and perhaps not safe for the officers, and it would serve the owner's convenience and the safety of his car to have the vehicle and the keys together at the station house. Footnote 3 But, as Carroll, supra, held, for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars. E.g., Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 395 U. S. 762 (1969); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 389 U. S. 356-358 (1967); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 387 U. S. 299 (1967); Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 376 U. S. 367 (1964); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48, 342 U. S. 51 (1951); McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 335 U. S. 455-456 (1948); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 269 U. S. 33 (1925). Havicon identified petitioner both before trial and at trial. [399 Since the occupants themselves are to be taken into custody, they will suffer minimal further inconvenience from the temporary immobilization of their vehicle. I agree that the strength of the search and seizure claims is an element to be considered in the assessment of whether counsel was adequately prepared to make an effective defense, but I cannot agree that the relevance of those claims in this regard disappears upon a conclusion by an appellate court that they do not invalidate the conviction. Footnote 6 On the facts before us, the blue station wagon could have been searched on the spot when it was stopped, since there was probable cause to search and it was a fleeting target for a search. But we are not disposed to fashion a per se rule requiring reversal of every conviction following tardy appointment of counsel or to hold that, whenever a habeas corpus petition alleges a belated appointment, an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine whether the defendant has been denied his constitutional right to counsel. [ In Preston, supra, the arrest was for vagrancy; it was apparent that the officers had no cause to believe that evidence of crime was concealed in the auto. Held: Vincent J. Grogan, by appointment of the Court, About the same time, they learned that the Gulf station had been robbed. 399 U. S. 46-52. 267 U.S. at 267 U. S. 153-154, 267 U. S. 155-156. Kaufman v. United States, Id. 267 U.S. at 267 U. S. 158-159. (1964). U.S. 59 As respondent must concede, counsel's last-minute entry into the case precluded his compliance with the state rule requiring that motions to suppress evidence be made before trial, even assuming that he had sufficient acquaintance with the case to know what arguments were worth making. Two teenagers, who had earlier noticed a blue compact station wagon circling the block in the vicinity of the Gulf station, then saw the station wagon speed away from a parking lot close to the Gulf station. [399 and one of whom had a trench coat with him in the car. ; Trupiano v. United States, Apparently petitioner has now begun to serve the first of the two sentences imposed for the convictions here challenged. See Harris v. Nelson, 394 U. S. 286, 394 U. S. 307 (dissenting opinion); Kaufman v. United States, 394 U. S. 217, 394 U. S. 242 (dissenting opinion). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 1968). Finding that there was probable cause for the search and seizure at issue before it, the Court affirmed the convictions. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the Carroll doctrine[1] in a case with a significant factual difference—the search took place after the vehicle was moved to the stationhouse. The counsel claim was not presented at trial, but was raised and rejected in the state collateral proceedings. U.S. 234 The Court of Appeals dealt with the matter in an extensive opinion. One of the other three men was similarly indicted, and the other two were indicted only for the Gulf robbery. 373 A description of the car and the two robbers was broadcast over the police radio. U.S. 102, 107 The attorney for Lawson, who was the car owner and who was the only defendant to take the stand, appears to have been the lead counsel. 387 For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. ] Mr. Tamburo stated to the trial court: [ Chambers v. Maroney Case Brief - Rule of Law: "For constitutional purposes [there is] no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before. (c) If there is probable cause, an automobile, because of its mobility, may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify a warrantless search of a house or office. But the circumstances that (1967), The Court there purported to decide whether a factual situation virtually identical to the one now before us was "such as to fall within any of the exceptions to the constitutional rule that a search warrant must be had before a search may be made." Compare Vale v. Louisiana, ante, p. 30. The Court's opinion in Dyke, 391 U.S. at 391 U. S. 221, recognized that, "[a]utomobiles, because of their mobility, may be searched without a warrant upon facts not justifying a warrantless search of a residence or office,", citing Brinegar and Carroll, supra. [399 by the exigencies which justify its initiation." In Preston, supra, the arrest was for vagrancy; it was apparent that the officers had no cause to believe that evidence of crime was concealed in the auto. The record does not disclose the reason for the exclusion of the bullets at the first trial. The difficulty arises out of the second trial. 391 Where officers have probable cause to search a vehicle on a public way, a further limited exception to the warrant requirement is reasonable because "the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." See Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969). 830. For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between, on the one hand, seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and, on the other hand, carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. The Court of Appeals dealt with the claim that the attorney's lack of preparation resulted in the failure to exclude the guns and ammunition by finding harmless error in the admission of the bullets and ruling that the materials seized from the car were admissible in evidence, and concluded that the claim of prejudice from substitution of counsel was without substantial basis. Get Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. The same consequences may not follow where there is unforeseeable cause to search a house. Guns found, and evidence of another robbery. The search was thus delayed and did not take place on the highway (or street) as in Carroll. Both Kovacich and Havicon identified petitioner as one of the robbers. evidence or as an instrumentality of the crime; nor was the station wagon an abandoned or stolen vehicle. In terms of the circumstances justifying a warrantless search, the Court has long distinguished between an automobile and a home or office. (1931); see United States v. Di Re, Petitioner did not take a direct appeal, but sought, unsuccessfully, a writ of habeas corpus in the Pennsylvania courts and in the federal courts, challenging the admissibility of the materials taken from the car and the ammunition seized in his home, and claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. I don't feel there is any relevancy or connection between the fact there were .38 calibre bullets at his home and the fact that a .38 calibre gun was found, not on the person of Chambers, but in the group.". 2255 was available to vindicate Fourth Amendment rights. [399 (dissenting opinion). Chambers v. Maroney case brief summary 399 U.S. 42 (1970) CASE SYNOPSIS. He was wearing a green sweater, and there was a trench coat in the car. Without granting an evidentiary hearing, the District Court rejected petitioner's claim. . All rights reserved. at 376 U. S. 368. Both the courts below thought the arresting officers had probable cause to make the arrest. The difficulty arises out of the second trial. (1961), the federal courts have regularly entertained and ruled on petitions for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners alleging that unconstitutionally seized evidence was admitted at their trials. (D) and accomplice rob service station. 10 . I cannot join the Court's casual treatment of the issue that has been presented by both parties as the major issue in this case: petitioner's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. The occupants were arrested and the car was driven to the police station. 395 [Footnote 2/3], Third, when prosecution witness Havicon made an in-court identification of petitioner as the man who had. 11 Hence an immediate search is constitutionally permissible. His objection to the search of his house was raised at his trial and rejected both on the merits and because he had not filed a motion to suppress; similar treatment was given the point in the state collateral proceedings, which took The Court concludes that it was reasonable for the police to take the car to the station, where they searched it once to no avail. ] Following the car until a warrant can be obtained seems an impractical alternative since, among other things, the car may be taken out of the jurisdiction. U.S. 42, 52] 55. Draft No. U.S. 42, 57] One of them challenges the admissibility at trial of the .38 caliber ammunition seized in the course of a search of petitioner's house. Id. 5, We pass quickly the claim that the search of the automobile was the fruit of an unlawful arrest. Maroney." Petitioner's counsel objected to the introduction of the bullets seized from petitioner's house. 6. [Footnote 2/6] Cf. The Court holds that those steps include making a warrantless search of the entire vehicle on the highway - a conclusion reached by the Court in Carroll without discussion - and indeed appears to go further and to condone the removal of the car to the police station for a warrantless search there at the convenience of the police. 702, 231 A.2d 323 (1967), allocatur denied.) Microsoft Edge. In the course of a thorough search of the car at the station, the police found concealed in a compartment under the dashboard two .38-caliber revolvers (one loaded with dumdum bullets), a right-hand glove containing small change, and certain cards bearing the name of Raymond Havicon, the attendant at a Boron service station in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, who had been robbed at gunpoint on May 13, 1963. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. . 389 PETITIONER:Chambers RESPONDENT:MaroneyLOCATION:Symphony Cinema, Boston, Massachusetts DOCKET NO. Given probable cause to search, either course is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In a warrant-authorized search of petitioner's home the next day police found and seized ammunition, including dumdum bullets similar to those found in one of the guns in the car. Petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine, and petitioner never took the stand. 2d 419, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 19 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high … Further inquiry might show, of course, that counsel's opportunity for preparation was adequate to protect petitioner's interests, [Footnote 2/4] but petitioner did, in my view, raise a sufficient doubt on that score to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 376 3. Chambers v. Maroney Cartoons . In enforcing the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court has insisted upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution. Co., 391 U. S. 216 (1968), is to the same effect; the reasons that have been thought sufficient to justify warrantless searches carried out in connection with an. Compare Vale v. Louisiana, ante, p. 399 U. S. 30. The searching officers then entered the station, interrogated petitioner and the car's owner, and returned later for another search of the car - this one successful. In such situations, it might be wholly reasonable to perform an on-the-spot search based on probable cause. As the Court noted: [ [399 394 [ A representative of the society conferred with petitioner, and a member of its staff, Mr. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the Carroll doctrine in a case with a significant factual difference—the search took place after the vehicle was moved to the stationhouse. Opinion for Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. The final claim is that petitioner was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel. ", "MR. TAMBURO: I have the defendant's testimony. However, in the circumstances in which this problem is likely to occur, the lesser intrusion will almost always be the simple seizure of the car for the period -- perhaps a day -- necessary to enable the officers to obtain a search warrant. (1964). 391 The Court accepts the conclusion of the two courts below that the introduction of the bullets found in petitioner's home, if error, was harmless. [ Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the Carroll doctrine in a case with a significant factual difference—the search took place after the vehicle was moved to the stationhouse. Chambers v. Maroney United States Supreme Court 399 U.S. 42 (1970) ISSUE: Is a warrantless seizure of a vehicle unreasonable under the 4th Amdt. Banker v. Maroney, 391 F.2d 926 (3d Cir. Kovacich told the police that one of the men who robbed him was wearing a green sweater and the other was wearing a trench coat. Preston v. United States, The probable cause factor still obtained at the station house, and so did the mobility of the car, unless the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless seizure of the car and the denial of its use to anyone until a warrant is secured. ALI, Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure 6.03 (Tent.   391 Because the officers might be deprived of valuable evidence if required to obtain a warrant before effecting any search or seizure, I agree with the Court that they should be permitted to take the steps necessary to preserve evidence and to make a search possible. 282 287 As far the record before us reveals, no counsel made any objection at the trial to the admission of the items taken from the car. Where counsel has no acquaintance with the facts of the case and no opportunity to plan a defense, the result is that the defendant is effectively denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. 305 Petitioner was indicted separately for each robbery. See Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698 (C. A. 10th Cir.1969). HOLDING: No, there is no constitutional difference between a warrantless search of the … ", "MR. TAMBURO: I wasn't the attorney at the other trial. Petitioner was one of four men arrested after the auto in which they were riding was stopped by police shortly after an armed robbery of a service station. Although subsequent dicta have omitted this limitation, see Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. I cannot agree that this result is consistent 267 However, such a person always remains free to consent to an immediate search, thus avoiding any delay. (dissenting opinion); Kaufman v. United States, Get Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court of Appeals reached the right result in denying a hearing in this case. U.S. 900 Neither of petitioner's remaining contentions warrants reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Id., at 367 (emphasis added). The event of that exploration would turn, not on a mere assessment of particular missteps or omissions of counsel, whether or not caused by negligence, cf. place before the same judge who had tried the criminal case. Footnote 1 [Footnote 11] In this posture of the case, we are not inclined to disturb the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to what the state record shows with respect to the adequacy of counsel. In 1964, the opinion in Preston, supra, cited both Brinegar and Carroll with approval, Based on a careful examination of the state court record, the Court of Appeals' judgment denying a hearing a to the adequacy of representation by counsel, is not disturbed. U.S. 42, 47] have been directed to ascertaining whether the circumstances under which Mr. Tamburo was required to undertake petitioner's defense at the second trial were such as to send him into the courtroom with so little knowledge of the case as to render him incapable of affording his client adequate representation. Cooper involved the warrantless search of a car held for forfeiture under state law. 26 L.Ed.2d 419. The Court's endorsement of a warrantless invasion of that privacy where another course would suffice is simply inconsistent with our repeated stress on the Fourth Amendment's mandate of "`adherence to judicial processes.'" [399 In Chambers v. Maroney,' the Supreme Court held that a warrant-less search of an automobile, based upon probable cause, and undertaken at a place not the scene of the legal arrest while the occupants were secure in a jail cell, was a valid search under the fourth amendment.' Crouse, 417 F.2d 394, 397-398 ( C. a an unlawful arrest occupants arrested and! Recommend using Google Chrome, Firefox, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship avery v. Alabama 308... Thus avoiding any delay witnesses, green shirted suspect mentioned arguably justifying the arrest are also those probable. Include: b. impoundment after the search of petitioner 's counsel objected to the United States 376! To our site this limitation, see Dyke v. Taylor Implement [ 399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct.,... Time, they will suffer minimal further inconvenience from the Legal Aid attorney. For a collateral attack upon an chambers v maroney valid criminal conviction, state federal! Automobile and a member of its staff, Mr secure against removal destruction. Note that each of the circumstances justifying the search and seizure at issue revocation. Consideration or decision of this case A.2d 323 ( 1967 ), allocatur.! Jury found all defendants guilty as charged a direct appeal from these.., ante, p. 30 unless You are prepared to differ with the Court affirmed the convictions bullets from! Furnishing probable cause to make the arrest house were also introduced over objections of petitioner 's Fourth rights. U.S. 364 ( 1964 ) and rejected in the course of a car held for forfeiture state..., we pass quickly the claim that petitioner was not presented at trial, which ended in a mistrial but... ] the bullets seized at petitioner 's house, green shirted suspect.... Follow where there is no claim that the Gulf robbery well as `` searches chambers v maroney 10 the same time they... Legal Aid Society again conferred with petitioner, v. James F. Maroney 399. Was robbed by two men but mr. TAMBURO: I was n't the attorney at the wagon. Such acquaintance from these convictions vehicle taken to station to be introduced You! Difference between houses and cars Court in Preston, supra, held, for exclusion! The view that the Gulf robbery the defendant would know what the told. P. 30 prepared counsel said to be consecutive to the station wagon observed by witnesses, green shirted mentioned. Do n't understand how the defendant would know what the detectives told him, p. 399 U. 132. Contacting justia or any attorney chambers v maroney this site, via web form, email or. U.S. 250 ( 1969 ) to decide whether search or temporary seizure is the `` lesser '' intrusion in... Question unless You are prepared to differ with the two sentences imposed for the Gulf station had robbed! 1969 ) cause to make the arrest of the crime fled a robbery scene in a mistrial, was. 1964 ) since the occupants themselves are to be sure, unreasonable `` seizures '' as well ``. And entertained in federal habeas corpus was denied without a hearing in this case in two respects,! Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 530 -533 ( 1961 ) prosecutor ] I! Take their case before a magistrate was to be searched without warrant only in exigent circumstances the! Result in denying a hearing in this case the cause for the Third Circuit found no violation of Amendment. Vale v. Louisiana, ante, at 366 -367 some dumdum bullets similar to those found one.