About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

43 Calif. L. Rev. 565 (1955)
Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Illegal Searches--A Comment on People v. Cahan

handle is hein.journals/calr43 and id is 583 raw text is: California Law Review VoL. 43 OCTOBER, 1955 No. 4 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Illegal Searches -A Comment on People vs. Cahan Edward L. Barrett, Jr.* Charles H. Cahan and fifteen others were charged with conspiring to engage in horse-race bookmaking and related offenses. Six of the defend- ants pleaded guilty. At the trial of the others the prosecution relied primar- ily upon evidence of two types: recordings made of conversations taking place in two houses occupied by some of the defendants (but not Cahan), and evidence seized at various locations when the police broke in and ar- rested the occupants. Testimony at the trial showed that the recordings were made after dictographs had been installed with permission of the chief of police but without the knowledge of the occupants. There was also testimony that the arrests and seizures were made without warrants, and in most cases after forcible entries which were not preceded by demands for admittance. The defense argued at the trial that all of this evidence must be excluded because, on the authority of Rochin v. California,' admission of evidence so obtained would be a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial judge rejected this contention and the case was tried on the theory that it was irrelevant whether the police acted legally in obtaining the evidence. One defendant was found not guilty and all the others, including Cahan, were convicted. Cahan was granted probation for five years on the condition that he spend the first 90 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $2,000. He appealed from the order granting him probation and the order denying his motion for a new trial. On the appeal counsel for Cahan and for the state argued primarily the question of the sufficiency of the evidence. Minor attention was given by each side to the defense argument that the Federal Constitution compelled rejection of the evidence. Neither side briefed or argued the question whether (aside from constitutional compulsion) the longstanding California *Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. 1342 U.S. 165 (1952). The statements made in this paragraph and the succeeding para- graph regarding the conduct of the trial and the appeal were derived from a personal inspection of the record and briefs on file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of California.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most