Evidence Obtained by other than Law Enforcement

In this article we explore the use of evidence presented to a court that has been obtained by someone other than a law enforcement officer.  We also look at the disposition of such evidence without regard to the method, legal or not, in which the evidence was collected.

So far as is necessary for our consideration certain facts from the record may be stated. which company is a holding company, having control of various oil and gas companies

McDowell was a director of both Quapaw Gas Company and that company’s holding company Cities Service Company.  Henry L. Doherty & Company of New York were operating managers of Cities Service Company.  Quapaw Gas Company leased the office space occupied by McDowell from Farmers Bank of Pittsburgh.  According to court records, McDowell was employed by Doherty & Company as the head of the natural gas division of the Cities Service Company, but terminated for alleged unlawful and fraudulent conduct in the course of the business.

In March of 1920, an officer of Doherty & Company and the Cities Service Company went to Pittsburgh to take possession of the company's office.  In doing so, in the presence of detectives, two safes were blown open.  One belonged to the bank, the other to Henry L. Doherty & Company.  In the larger or the safes, papers belonging to McDowell were found. The desk was also forced open, and all the papers found was confiscated and shipped to Doherty & Company’s office in New York.

McDowell petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for return of his property, which was in possession of Burdeau, a special assistant to the Attorney General of the United States.  In his petition, McDowell claimed that Burdeau and his associates planned to present to a grand jury certain private property belonging to him that had been obtained by Burdeau were unlawfully seized and stolen.  McDowell further argued that the presentation to the grand jury of his private property would deprive him of his constitutional rights secured to him by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

In Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to evidence not collected by agents of the government.  In essence, this ruling created a crack in the wall of the Exclusionary Rule.  I allowed the prosecution to present evidence to a trial court no matter that the evidence was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. 

The District Court Judge ruled that neither the government, Burdeau nor any of his associates had been a party to any unlawful act to gain the property claimed by McDowell.  The District Court Judge did rule however, that the property had been unlawfully taken from McDowell and as such to use them against him would be a gross violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

On appeal, The Supreme Court reversed the District Court Judge.  The Court found that the seizure of evidence is restricted by the fourth and fifth Amendments only when an agent of the government undertakes such a seizure.  Evidence seized by a private citizen, whether legally or illegally seized is still admissible in court so long a the seizure was not orchestrated by an agent of the government.

For more article on the admissibility of evidence, return to the home page.