> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/sourcebooks/introduction-to-law/introductory-criminal-procedure-principles/weeks-v.-united-states/brief-weeks-v.-united-states.md).

# Brief: Weeks v. United States

## Facts

* Warrantless arrest by police
* officers had already searched his home; neighbor told theme where the housekey was
* seized "various papers and articles" and gave to U.S. Marshal
* Marshal then went to house, someone (probably a boarders") allowed them in; warrantles searched def's room and seized more letters and envelopes in a dresser

## Proc Hist

* Def filed motion for return of property, alleging the search was unconstitutional
* court ordered return only of property unrelated to the charge - ct recognized the illegal nature of the search
  * Still, the ct retained property was "to be used in evidence in the trial of the above entitled cause, and pertains to the alleged sale of lottery tickets of the company above named.”
    * Among the papers retained and put in evidence were a number of lottery tickets and statements with reference to the lottery, taken at the first visit of the police to the defendant’s room, and a number of letters written to the defendant in respect to the lottery,

## Issue

* validity under the Fourth Amendment of a verdict and sentence and the extent to which the private papers of the accused taken without search warrant can be used as evidence against him, are stated in the opinion.
  * Specifically: the right of the court in a criminal prosecution to retain for the purposes of evidence the letters and correspondence of the accused, seized in his house in his absence and without his authority, by a United States Marshal holding no warrant for his arrest and none for the search of his premises.

## Holding

the evidence couldn't be used to convict and sentence

## Rule

## Analysis

* 4th: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
* Purpose: Protection against invasions allowed by general warrants and other protections that existed in England
  * So, fundamental 4th Amend principle: a man’s house was his castle and not to be invaded by any general authority to search and seize his goods and papers.
  * “no man’s house can be forcibly opened, or he or his goods be carried away after it has thus been forced, except in cases of felony, and then the sheriff must be furnished with a warrant, and take great care lest he commit a trespass.
  * Fourth and Fifth Amendments, said:

    > It was in that case demonstrated that both of these Amendments contemplated perpetuating, in their full efficacy, by means of a constitutional provision, principles of humanity and civil liberty, which had been secured in the mother country only after years of struggle, so as to implant them in our institutions in the fullness of their integrity, free from the possibilities of future legislative change.

    * place limitations and restraints on federal gov't powers and authority
* **when legally arrested, gov't may searched the person and seize the fruits (of the search) or evidence of crime**
* **If warrantless searches were allowed, the 4th Amend would be meaningless**
  * **Fundamental principle!**
* **Need to protect the "sanctity" of one's home**


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:

```
GET https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/sourcebooks/introduction-to-law/introductory-criminal-procedure-principles/weeks-v.-united-states/brief-weeks-v.-united-states.md?ask=<question>
```

The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.