## Facts

- A grand jury indicted John D. Ehrlichman, Charles W. Colson, G. Gordon Liddy, Bernard L. Barker, and Eugenio R. Martinez for conspiring to injure Dr. Lewis Fielding in the enjoyment of his Fourth Amendment rights.
- The alleged conspiracy involved a warrantless entry into Dr. Fielding’s Los Angeles office to obtain confidential medical records of Daniel Ellsberg.
- Defendants sought broad pretrial discovery of national security information to support defenses that (1) the operation was lawful because it was allegedly authorized by the President for national security reasons, and (2) national security information gave them a good-faith, reasonable belief that the entry was legal and justified.
- Defendants also sought dismissal or other relief based on asserted risks and complications from exposing national security information in litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged presidential authorization for national security purposes can make a domestic warrantless break-in of a private office reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether a defendant’s asserted good-faith, reasonable belief—based on national security concerns—that the break-in was legal constitutes a legally cognizable defense requiring broad discovery.
3. Whether concerns about disclosure of national security information require dismissal of the indictment or other extraordinary relief.

## Decision

- The court denied the motions for broad national security-related discovery.
- The court rejected, as a matter of law, the contention that presidential or national security authorization could legalize the warrantless entry.
- The court rejected, as a matter of law, the claim that a national-security-based good-faith belief in legality could justify or excuse the charged conspiracy.
- The court declined to dismiss the indictment or grant other relief premised on secrecy concerns because the sought national security materials were not relevant to a legally valid defense.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment generally requires a judicial warrant for governmental intrusion into a private office, absent narrowly defined emergency circumstances.
- Executive branch assertions of national security do not, by themselves, create a general domestic exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
- Presidential authorization cannot convert an otherwise unconstitutional warrantless search into a lawful one for purposes of criminal liability.
- A defendant’s sincere belief that national security justified a warrantless break-in does not supply a legal defense when no recognized Fourth Amendment exception applies.
- Discovery may be denied where the requested classified or sensitive material is not material to a legally cognizable defense or to the elements of the charged offense.

## Conclusion

The court held that neither presidential authorization nor national security concerns could justify a domestic warrantless break-in of a private office, and it denied expansive national security discovery and secrecy-based relief because the proposed defenses were invalid as a matter of law.


United States v. Ehrlichman, 376 F. Supp. 29 (D.D.C. 1974)