text:
    No. 80-1459.
    Green v. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 80-1467.
    Paladino v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1475.
    Horton et vir v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1493.
    Chagra v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-5884.
    Davis v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-5916.
    Spencer v. Israel, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-5932.
    Hinkle v. Municipality of Anchorage.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-5966.
    Illsley v. United States Parole and Probation Department et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari -denied.


text:
    No. 80-6008.
    Gray v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6131.
    Richard v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6144.
    Logan v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6148.
    No. 80-6149.
    McKinnie v. Wisconsin; and Jones v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 98 Wis. 2d 749, 297 N. W. 2d 515.


text:
    No. 80-6150.
    Bryant v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6152.
    Leachman v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6157.
    Rutledge v. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation of Florida.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6158.
    Unwin v. Vermont.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6160.
    Severa v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6163.
    Johns v. King, Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6170.
    Rhodes v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6171.
    Taylor v. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation of Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6174.
    Wexler v. Industrial Valley Bank & Trust Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6177.
    Castello v. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation of Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6179.
    Dorty v. Hayes et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6222.
    Thingvold v. Franzen et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6227.
    Powers v. Buchanan.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6239.
    Gunston v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6248.
    Graham v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6250.
    Chrisman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6261.
    Streets v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6266.
    Sutton et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6279.
    White et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1331.
    Florida v. Malone.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Powell would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-1268.
    Monongahela Power Co. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Black-mun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 80-1339.
    Clanon, Superintendent, California Medical Facility at Vacaville, et al. v. Gibson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-5696.
    Payne v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton

County. Certiorari denied.

Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 80-5942.
    No. 80-5969.
    No. 80-6155.
    Amadeo v. Russeau, Sheriff. Miller v. Arkansas. Jackson v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Ark.; and

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 80-5969, 269 Ark. 341, 605 S. W. 2d 430; No. 80-6155, 28 Cal. 3d 264, 618 P. 2d 149.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 80-5633.
    No. 80-5891.
    Bland v. Texas, Theriault et al. v. Establishment of Religion on Taxpayers’ Money in the Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.,
   ante, p. 924;

ante, p. 929;


text:
    No. 80-5930.
    No. 80-5964.
    Keezer et al. v. Minnesota, Phipps v. Brown et al.,
   ante, p. 930; and

ante, p. 932. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    April 6, 1981
    No. 80-1394.
    Wilson et ux. v. California Health Facilities Commission.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 80-6206.
    Lee v. Board of Overseers of the Bar.
   Appeal from Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 80-1422.
    Reynolds v. Reynolds.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Tenn. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-602.
    United States v. Hicks et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court, ante, p. 464.


text:
    No. 80-778.
    New Mexico et al. v. Mescalero Apache Tribe.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Montana v. United States, ante, p. 544.


text:
    No. 80-1264.
    General Telephone Company of the Southwest v. Falcon.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, ante, p. 248.


text:
    No. A-709 (80-1395).
    Bradley et al. v. J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc., et al.; and Lafayette, Inc., et al. v. J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Powell and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-794.
    B. F. et al. v. Colorado, in the interest of T. A. F.
   Ct. App. Colo. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-813.
    Ritz v. New York.
   Sup. Ct. N. Y., Bronx County. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-815.
    Stovall et al. v. Patterson et al.
   Application for stay, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-832.
    Zuccaro v. United States.
   Application for an independent determination of bail pending trial, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-226.
    In re Disbarment of Kumar.
   It is ordered that Rajeshwar Kumar, of Camp Hill, Pa., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-227.
    In re Disbarment of Schmidt.
   It is ordered that Robert M. Schmidt, of Birmingham, Mich., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-228.
    In re Disbarment of Fry.
   It is ordered that Harry A. Fry, of Pasadena, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-229.
    In re Disbarment of Lisner.
   It is ordered that Donald H. Lisner, of Cincinnati, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-230.
    In re Disbarment of Conroy.
   It is ordered that Thomas A. Conroy, of Cincinnati, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-232.
    In re Disbarment of McClellan.
   It is ordered that Howard B. McClellan, of McLean, Ya., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 85,
    Orig.
    Texas v. Oklahoma.
   Motion of Texas Power & Light Co. for leave to intervene denied. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 905.]


text:
    No. 87,
    Orig.
    California v. Texas.
   Motion of Citizens for a Better Environment et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of plaintiffs to defer consideration denied. The temporary restraining order entered March 9, 1981 [ante, p. 977], is vacated. Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint denied without prejudice. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 1027.]


text:
    No. 80-148.
    Robbins v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. [Certiorari granted, 449 U. S. 1109.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for additional time for oral argument granted, and 10 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Petitioner also allotted an additional 10 minutes for oral argument. Motion of petitioner for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 80-6354.
    Beshaw v. Fenton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner to consolidate this case with No. 80-5392, Howe v. Smith, Attorney General, et al. [cer-tiorari granted sub nom. Howe v. Civiletti, 449 U. S. 1123], denied.


text:
    No. 80-1617 (A-814).
    In re Sterritt.
   Application for bail, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 79-1618.
    Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. Kassel et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari

granted.


text:
    No. 80-427.
    Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc., et al. v. McNary et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 80-1350.
    Community Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder, Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari granted.


text:
    No. 80-1377.
    Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 80-1464.
    Watt, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Energy Action Educational Foundation et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 80-5727.
    Eddings v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 79-6716.
    Fear v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-874.
    Mathews v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Cer-

tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1035.
    Redd et al. v. Lambert, Chairman, State Tax Commission of Mississippi, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1036.
    Machine Tool & Gear, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1087.
    Ellis Fischel State Cancer Hospital v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1095.
    Baker et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1114.
    Glassboro Service Assn., Inc. v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1124.
    Begay et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1149.
    Martin et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1153.
    Haugen v. Taylor et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1169.
    Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1171.
    Abdella v. Shawano Lake Sanitary District No. 1 et al.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1216.
    No. 80-5818.
    Randell v. United States; and Mumford v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 630 F. 2d 1023.


text:
    No. 80-1224.
    No. 80-1383.
    Transamerican Press, Inc., et al. v. Miller; and Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 621 F. 2d 721.


text:
    No. 80-1329.
    No. 80-1340.
    Ramos et al. v. Lamm, Governor of Colorado, et al.; and Lamm, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Ramos et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 639 F. 2d 559.


text:
    No. 80-1336.
    Cloud v. Byrd, Sheriff.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1361.
    M/G Transport Services, Inc. v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., Executor, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1362.
    Ronwin v. Segal et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1363.
    Williamson v. Kimbrough, Zoning Administrator, Dallas, Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1366.
    California v. Schuster et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1367.
    Niedermeyer v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1372.
    Robert E. Kurzius, Inc., et al. v. Incorporated Village of Upper Brookville.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1373.
    Utility Consumers Council of Missouri, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri et al.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1381.
    Cissna et ux. v. Amman et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1386.
    French v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1391.
    First National Bank of Omaha et al. v. Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1397.
    Carabbia et al. v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1460.
    Schwallier v. United States et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1478.
    Whitted v. Lyall et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1492.
    Shelton v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1521.
    Greenberg v. San Juan Hotel Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-5028.
    Arechiga v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-5945.
    McFadden v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6056.
    Cole v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6082.
    Petty v. Jackson, Corrections Director.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6113.
    Williams v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6123.
    No. 80-6167.
    Montellano v. United States; and Portillo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 633 F. 2d 1313.


text:
    No. 80-6164.
    Davis v. New York.
   Sup. Ct. N. Y., Erie County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6178.
    Rowe v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6182.
    Moore v. Baker.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6184.
    Graham v. Morris, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6186.
    Williams v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6190.
    Robinson v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6191.
    Parsons v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6193.
    Gilcrist et al. v. Davis, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6195.
    Hornick v. Noyes et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6196.
    Underwood v. Morris, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6197.
    Vitoratos v. Engle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6205.
    Brouillette v. Wood, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6236.
    Aleem v. Moore et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6246.
    Morton v. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6283.
    Sangster v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6287.
    Deener v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certio-

rari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6290.
    Allison v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6304.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6306.
    Drummond v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-6316.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-495.
    Lester et ux. v. Anderson, Executrix.
   Ct. App. La., 3d Cir. Motion of Consumer Federation of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 80-1031.
    Baldwin v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

In 1974, the Memphis Police Department began an investigation of petitioner and his business activities. To further this inquiry, an undercover police officer sought a position as petitioner’s handyman and chauffeur. The agent was hired, and from July 1975 to December 1975 lived in petitioner’s home. On several occasions during this 6-month period the agent found in the home what he believed to be cocaine. The agent took samples of these substances and gave them to his superior officers. On the basis of this evidence, petitioner was indicted for possession of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

Prior to trial, petitioner moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained through a war-rantless search of his home. The District Court denied the suppression motion and petitioner was convicted. The Court of Appeals also rejected petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim, concluding that there ivas no “precedent to support the suggestion that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement agencies to seek prior judicial approval in the form of a warrant before utilizing an undercover agent.” 621 F. 2d 251, 252. Two judges dissented from the subsequent denial of petitioner’s request for rehearing en banc. 632 F. 2d 1. Because the panel opinion resolves an issue of substantial importance in a manner not supported by our prior decisions, I would grant the petition for certiorari.

The Fourth Amendment accords special protection to a person’s expectation of privacy in his own home. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 585, 589-590 (1980); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 561, 565 (1976); Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961). Absent special circumstances not present here, searches of a person’s home are constitutionally unreasonable when conducted without probable cause and without a warrant. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948). We have consistently held that these restrictions do not vanish simply because the government seeks to obtain incriminating evidence through deception rather than through a routine search. In Gouled v. United States, 225 U. S. 298, 306 (1921), a Government agent gained admission into the office of a criminal suspect on the pretext of paying a social visit. During the visit, the agent surreptitiously seized incriminating evidence that was later used in a criminal prosecution against the suspect. This Court, in unanimously concluding that the warrantless search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, reasoned:

“The prohibition of the Fourth Amendment is against all unreasonable searches and seizures and if for a Government officer to obtain entrance to a man’s house or office by force or by an illegal threat or show of force, amounting to coercion, and then to search for and seize his private papers would be an unreasonable and therefore a prohibited search and seizure, as it certainly would be, it is impossible to successfully contend that a like search and seizure would be a reasonable one if only admission were obtained by stealth instead of by force or coercion. The security and privacy of the home or office and of the papers of the owner would be as much invaded and the search and seizure would be as much against his will in the one case as in the other., and it must therefore be regarded as equally in violation of his constitutional rights.” Id., at 305-306.

We have repeatedly indicated that Gouled v. United States remains the controlling precedent in this area. Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 211 (1966); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 301 (1966). The rationale of that decision would appear directly applicable to this case. Indeed, if anything, the conduct here is arguably more objectionable in constitutional terms than that condemned in Gouled; the search was of a home rather than a business office, lasted for six months instead of several minutes, and appears to have been undertaken for the general purpose of gathering any incriminating evidence rather than the specific purpose of seizing certain incriminating documents. Yet rather than recognize the significance of Gouled or attempt to distinguish it, the Court of Appeals simply overlooks that case in concluding that there is no precedent governing warrantless undercover searches.

This oversight alone is sufficient to warrant review of the decision below by this Court. Moreover, the Court of Appeals in reaching its conclusion — that the Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause and warrant requirements never govern the search of a home by undercover agents — incorrectly construed several decisions by this Court that rejected limited constitutional challenges to such investigatory techniques. In the first case, Lewis v. United States, supra, we rejected the contention that a search warrant must be obtained before an undercover agent, posing as a drug purchaser, may enter a person’s home to make an illegal drug purchase. However, the challenge there was based on the mere entry into the home, rather than a search for evidence there, and the Court specifically noted that it was not addressing the question whether a search could be conducted under such circumstances. Id,., at 208. More important, in concluding that a warrant was not necessary, the Court focused on the fact that the defendant had relinquished his expectation of privacy in the home by inviting the agent in for the purpose of conducting an illegal drug transaction. We noted:

“[W]hen, as here, the home is converted into a commercial center to which outsiders are invited for purposes of transacting unlawful business, that business is entitled to no greater sanctity than if it were carried on in a store, a garage, a car, or on the street.” Id., at 211.

Here, in contrast, petitioner neither invited the undercover agent into his home for any illegal purpose nor gave up his expectation of privacy in the home by converting it into a center of unlawful business.

The rationale of the other decision relied on by the Court of Appeals, Hoffa v. United States, supra, is similarly inapplicable here. In that case, we concluded that the Fourth Amendment was not violated when a Government informant reported conversations he had with a criminal suspect. However, Hoffa involved only the limited question whether the Fourth Amendment precluded the Government from benefiting from a “wrongdoer’s misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it.” Id., at 302. In rejecting this contention we made clear that the defendant’s claim — unlike petitioner’s here — was not based on any asserted violation of his right of privacy. Ibid.

Despite the care with which this Court in Lewis and Hoff a sought to define the limited scope of its rulings, the Court of Appeals in the instant case has construed those decisions as removing virtually all constitutional constraints on the use of undercover agents to conduct home searches. If the decision of the Memphis police to place an undercover agent in petitioner’s home for a 6-month period, during which the agent rifled through his belongings in the search for incriminating evidence, does not implicate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” it is hard to imagine what sort of undercover activity would. Indeed, under the Sixth Circuit’s approach, the Government need never satisfy the probable-cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment if, by disguising its officers as repairmen, babysitters, neighbors, maids, and the like, it is able to gain entry into an individual’s home by ruse rather than force in order to conduct a search.

By ignoring Gouled, and extending Lewis and Hoff a beyond their plainly intended scope, the decision of the Court of Appeals raises important constitutional concerns. The decision is probably wrong; at the very least, it warrants review by this Court. I therefore dissent from the denial of the petition for certiorari.

       The “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement is obviously inapplicable to the extensive and planned search at issue here.

       The Court in Lewis further limited its holding by noting that an undercover agent who had gained entry under the pretext of conducting an illegal drug transaction would not be constitutionally empowered “to conduct a general search for incriminating materials.” 385 U. S., at 211.

       The decision in Hofia is further distinguished from the instant case by the facts that the informant was a friend of the defendant rather than a law enforcement officer, and because the “seizure” of conversations that the defendant sought to suppress took place in a variety of public places rather than solely in the defendant’s home.

       The potential scope of the Court of Appeals ruling is not limited to searches of a home. For example, while we have recently held that inspectors of the Department of Labor must obtain a search warrant before entering most businesses to search for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U. S. 307 (1978), under the Sixth Circuit’s rule this search warrant requirement could be circumvented if the inspectors gained entry by representing themselves as employees, labor representatives, and the like.


text:
    No. 80-1084.
    Mountain States Legal Foundation et al. v. Costle, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of Pacific Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-1479.
    Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Bronson.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 80-437.
    No. 80-1033.
    No. 80-5923.
    No. 80-6028.
    Arshal v. United States, Jamil v. Southridge Cooperative Section 4, Inc., Pusch et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Kinnell v. Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Kansas et al.; Kinnell v. Carlin et al.; and Kinnell v. Willcott et al.,
   449 U. S. 1077;

ante, p. 919;

ante, p. 930; and

ante, p. 984. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 79-1857.
    Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent et al.
   449 U. S. 890 and 1103. Motion for leave to file a second petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 80-323.
    Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers et al.
   ante, p. 970. Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 80-5516.
    Elcan v. United States,
   449 U. S. 1087. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    April 8, 1981
    No. 80-1545.
    Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Rosener et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


author: Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE v. LONG et al.
    No. A-720.
    Decided March 3, 1981
   Justice Rehnquist,

Circuit Justice.

Applicant Bureau of Economic Analysis, a division of the United States Department of Commerce, seeks to stay an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ordering applicant, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552, to turn over to respondents certain information regarding tax audit standards. The procedural history of this case is somewhat confusing. In 1975 respondents commenced an action against the Internal Revenue Service to obtain certain data. Respondents prevailed in that suit and the IRS appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While that action was pending, respondents commenced this action in the District Court against applicant to obtain similar data in its possession and, on February 20, 1979, moved for summary judgment. In May 1979, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the IRS, Long v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. 2d 362 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U. S. 917 (1980), but remanded the case so that the IRS could raise certain additional defenses. On October 17, 1980, the IRS on remand did indeed amend its answer to raise the additional defenses. Significantly, however, the applicant did not amend its answer in this case. On January 12, 1981, the District Court entered summary judgment against applicant on the ground of its “unreasonable delay” in amending its answer to respondents’ complaint and ordered that the sought-after information be disclosed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has declined to stay the District Court’s order.

In its application for a stay, the applicant asserts that it is likely to prevail on the merits and that it will suffer irreparable harm if the tax information is disclosed. Although I express no views as to the probability of this Court granting a petition for certiorari should applicant lose its appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, I think if Congress makes the Government answerable as a defendant in the courts of the United States, the Government is obligated to abide by the rules prescribed for it as a litigant. It is my view that the applicant, by failing to amend its answer in this case for more than a year and a half after the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Long v. Internal Revenue Service, rendered itself liable for summary judgment. The applicant argues that any delay was not unreasonable, since it wrote a letter to the District Court on October 16, 1979, saying that it would be inappropriate to render summary judgment in this case until a final resolution of Long v. Internal Revenue Service. But the United States Attorney’s two-paragraph letter falls well short of an amendment of its answer in this case. Accordingly, I am unwilling to exercise my authority as Circuit Justice at this stage of the litigation and stay the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Accordingly, the temporary stay heretofore granted by me on February 23, 1981, is vacated, and the application for stay is denied.