Angelet v. FayAnnotate this Case
381 U.S. 654 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court
Angelet v. Fay, 381 U.S. 654 (1965)
Angelet v. Fay
Argued March 11, 1965
Decided June 7, 1965
381 U.S. 654
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Linkletter v. Walker,381 U. S. 618, decided this date. Petitioner was convicted in a New York State court in 1951 for possession of narcotics with intent to sell. On December 21, 1950, two detectives attached to the Narcotics Squad of the New York City Police Department entered petitioner's apartment by a door opened by a painter who was just leaving. They ignored the protest of petitioner and proceeded, without a warrant, to search the apartment. Upon entering, one of the officers called an agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics . After two federal agents arrived, the local and federal officers made a thorough search of the apartment. One of the local officers found 54 cellophane envelopes, 106 empty capsules, a box of staples, and a scale. A federal agent found four packages under a hat. Analysis revealed that three of the packets contained heroin, and the other contained cocaine. These items were introduced in evidence at the state trial without objection of petitioner's counsel. Nor was objection made to the participation of the federal narcotics agents in the investigation. After conviction, petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, but the appeal was dismissed in March of 1952.
In August, 1961, after Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643, was decided, petitioner resorted to state post-conviction remedies, claiming that the evidence found in his apartment and introduced against him had been illegally seized, and that his conviction had therefore been obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Upon seeking habeas corpus in the United States District Court on the same grounds, his application was denied. The
trial judge refused to apply Mapp retrospectively. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by a divided vote. 333 F.2d 12. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 815, and set this case for argument with Linkletter, supra. That case answers petitioner's point as to the retrospective application of Mapp.