| Mancusi v. DeForte | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 25, 1968 Decided June 17, 1968 | |
| Full case name | United States ex rel. Frank DeForte, appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York, appellee |
| Docket no. | 68-844 |
| Citations | 392 U.S. 364 (more) 88 S. Ct. 2120; 20 L. Ed. 2d 1154 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Conviction affirmed sub nom. People v. DeGrandis, 16 A.D.2d 834, 228 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962); affirmed, 12 N.Y.2d 812, 236 N.Y.S.2d 63, 187 N.E.2d 130 (1962); cert. denied, 375 U.S. 868 (1963); 1st writ habeas corpus denied, unreported; affirmed sub. nom. DeGrandis v. Fay, 335 F.2d 173 (2d Cir. 1964); 2nd writ denied, 261 F. Supp. 579 (W.D.N.Y., 1966); reversed, 379 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1967); cert. granted, 390 U.S. 903 (1968). |
| Holding | |
| Documents obtained by prosecutor personally executing subpoena duces tecum from desk of union official were unconstitutionally admitted as evidence in later trial that convicted official of rackeetering-related charges; reasonable expectation of privacy under Fourth Amendment can exist in workplace without possessory interest in same. Second Circuit affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Harlan, joined by Warren, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas, Marshall |
| Dissent | Black, joined by Stewart |
| Dissent | White |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amd. IV | |
Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. It originated in the lower courts as United States ex rel. Frank DeForte, appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York, appellee, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a prisoner who had exhausted all his state appeals. By a 6–3 margin the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of a district court denial of the petition.
The prisoner, Frank DeForte, was one of several labor union officials on Long Island who had been convicted of racketeering-related charges connected to a scheme in which they attempted to monopolize the jukebox market in the New York Metropolitan area. Early in the investigation, local prosecutors had issued a subpoena duces tecum for records from the union officials. When they refused to comply, the prosecutors went to the union offices themselves and seized the records from the officials' desks themselves. DeForte had been present and voiced his objections. The state later admitted the action was illegal but the documents, which formed the bulk of the case against the officials, were not suppressed at trial. Both the state's appellate court and the New York State Court of Appeals sustained the verdict, and all the defendants went to prison. There they began filing habeas petitions to the federal courts. The first, alleging that the court's orders to the jury to continue deliberating after they had done so for almost 24 hours and twice asked for a break constituted coercion, was denied.
DeForte's second, arguing as he had at trial and on his state appeal, that the search of his desk violated his reasonable expectation of privacy and thus his Fourth Amendment rights, was the one the Supreme Court heard. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote for the majority that under the Court's recent holding in Katz v. United States, DeForte had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the papers he kept at work even though they were not his personal property and he shared the office with his co-defendants. Nor did the subpoena authorize the prosecutor to act as he might with a search warrant, since the subpoena was not subject to independent judicial review before its execution. In dissent, Hugo Black, who had also dissented in Katz, said he could not find why the Court chose to depart from previous holdings that documents in the possession of one's employer enjoyed no Fourth Amendment protection, and was misreading the cases it relied on.
The case is seen as a seminal case in privacy law, since it extended it for the first time to a non-residential space. Lower courts have used it to guide them in distinguishing Fourth Amendment claims into the present day. The Supreme Court has, in later holdings, extended it to include public employees during administrative investigations and considered its application in the context of modern telecommunications.