## Facts

- Frank DeForte, a union vice president, was indicted in New York for conspiracy, coercion, and extortion arising from alleged misuse of his union position.
- Prosecutors issued a subpoena duces tecum to the union seeking specified books and records.
- After the union declined to comply, officials entered union headquarters and seized records from an office DeForte shared with other union officials.
- The seizure was conducted without a warrant and over DeForte’s contemporaneous protests; some records were in his custody when taken.
- The seized records were admitted against DeForte at trial over objection, and he was convicted.
- State courts affirmed the conviction; a federal district court denied habeas relief; the Second Circuit reversed and ordered habeas relief based on a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violation.
- The Supreme Court granted review of the State’s challenge to the habeas ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether a union officer who shares an office has a sufficient Fourth Amendment interest to object to a warrantless seizure of union records kept there and in his custody.
2. Whether officials may treat a prosecutor-issued subpoena duces tecum as authority to conduct a warrantless search and seizure, consistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment granting habeas relief.
- DeForte had standing to challenge the search because he worked in the office, was present during the search, and had a reasonable expectation that records in his custody there would not be taken without proper permission, even though the office was shared and the documents were union property.
- The warrantless search and seizure was unreasonable; the subpoena duces tecum was not a valid search warrant and no warrant exception applied.
- Because the search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the seized records were inadmissible in the state prosecution under the exclusionary rule.

## Legal Principles

- Fourth Amendment protections can extend to a workplace office; an individual may challenge a search of an office as well as a home.
- A reasonable expectation of privacy may exist in a shared office, and it is not defeated solely by lack of exclusive control or ownership of the premises or documents.
- A subpoena duces tecum is not a search warrant and does not authorize officials to conduct a physical search and seizure without complying with the warrant requirement.
- Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure is subject to exclusion in state criminal proceedings via the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a union official had a personal Fourth Amendment interest in records kept in his shared office and that prosecutors could not execute a subpoena by conducting a warrantless seizure; the resulting evidence was inadmissible, supporting habeas relief from the state conviction.


Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968)