## Facts

- Federal agents executed a search warrant at John P. Calandra’s business seeking gambling-related “bookmaking records and wagering paraphernalia.”
- During the search, an agent seized a document believed to relate to a separate loansharking investigation, though it was outside the warrant’s described items.
- A federal grand jury investigating loansharking subpoenaed Calandra and questioned him using information derived from the seized document.
- Calandra refused to answer; the government obtained transactional immunity to compel his testimony.
- Calandra moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the warrant affidavit was insufficient and the agents exceeded the warrant’s scope.
- The district court suppressed the evidence and ordered Calandra need not answer grand jury questions based on it.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the exclusionary rule barred use of unlawfully seized evidence in grand jury proceedings.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a grand jury witness may refuse to answer questions because they are based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.
2. Whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule requires suppression of illegally seized evidence in federal grand jury proceedings.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held that a witness may not refuse to answer grand jury questions on the ground that they are derived from an unlawful search and seizure.
- The Court held the exclusionary rule does not apply to suppress evidence in grand jury proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy aimed primarily at deterring unlawful police conduct, not a personal constitutional right of an aggrieved party.
- The rule applies only where its deterrent effect justifies its institutional costs; it does not bar use of illegally obtained evidence in all settings.
- Extending suppression litigation to grand jury proceedings would substantially burden the grand jury’s investigative function and delay investigations, while adding only minimal additional deterrence beyond trial-level suppression.
- Grand jury questioning based on unlawfully seized evidence is a derivative use and does not itself constitute a new or independent Fourth Amendment violation.
- If an indictment follows, the defendant retains the ability to seek suppression of illegally obtained evidence at trial.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not restrict a federal grand jury from questioning a witness using information derived from an unlawful search, and a witness cannot refuse to answer on that basis, leaving suppression to be addressed in later trial proceedings if charges are brought.


United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)