Lustig v. United States/Concurrence Black

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
904997Lustig v. United States — ConcurrenceHugo Black
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinion
Black
Dissenting Opinion
Reed

United States Supreme Court

338 U.S. 74

Lustig  v.  United States

 Argued: Oct. 19, 1948. --- Decided: June 27, 1949


Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the judgment of the Court substantially for reasons set out in his dissent in Feldman v. United States, 332 U.S. 487, 494, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1085, 88 L.Ed. 1408, 154 A.L.R. 982.

Mr. Justice MURPHY, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE join, concurring.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER finds it unnecessary to decide whether an illegal search by state officers bars the introduction of the fruits of the search in a federal court. I join in his opinion, and in the judgment of reversal. But my dissenting views in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, make clear my position on the question he reserves. In my opinion the important consideration is the presence of an illegal search. Whether state or federal officials did the searching is of no consequence to the defendant, and it should make no difference to us.

Mr. Justice REED, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice JACKSON and Mr. Justice BURTON join, dissenting.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse