Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Abel, alias "Mark," alias Collins, alias Goldfus, v. United States, 1958 — 358 U.S. 813 · caselaw · US
General
Abel, alias "Mark," alias Collins, alias Goldfus, v. United States
358 U.S. 813·Supreme Court of the United States·1958
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 263.
Abel, alias “Mark,” alias Collins, alias Goldfus, v. United States.
James B. Donovan and Thomas M. Debevoise, II, for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, William F. Tompkins and Kevin T. Maroney for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certi-orari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition for the writ which read as follows:
“1. Whether the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are violated by a search and the seizure of evidence without a search warrant, after an alien suspected and officially accused of espionage has been taken into custody for deportation, pursuant to an administrative Immigration Service warrant, but has not been arrested for the commission of a crime?
“2. Whether the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are violated when articles so seized are unrelated to the Immigration Service warrant and, together with other articles obtained from such leads, are introduced as evidence in a prosecution for espionage?”