## Facts

- After the Pentagon Papers leak, the White House formed a “Special Investigations” unit to stop disclosures of classified information.
- John D. Ehrlichman, a senior White House aide, exercised general supervision over the unit.
- The unit targeted Daniel Ellsberg and sought information from Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis J. Fielding.
- When Fielding would not provide information due to confidentiality, unit members proposed a covert “black-bag” break-in to obtain Fielding’s files.
- Evidence showed Ehrlichman approved the operation, conditioned on avoiding a trace to the White House.
- Unit members burglarized and searched Fielding’s office in California.
- During subsequent investigations, Ehrlichman made statements alleged to be false, leading to perjury charges.
- A jury convicted Ehrlichman of (1) conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241, based on the unconstitutional search, and (2) two counts of perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623, based on materially false statements to investigators.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimed delegable presidential foreign-affairs/national-security power could render lawful the warrantless break-in and search of a private psychiatrist’s office.
2. Whether § 241’s specific-intent requirement demanded proof that Ehrlichman knew the search was unlawful, such that a good-faith belief in legality would negate mens rea.
3. Whether the perjury convictions should be reversed for lack of proof of materiality, falsity, or knowledge, or due to instructional or evidentiary error.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions on all counts.
- It rejected the argument that presidential or national-security authority justified the domestic burglary and search.
- It held that § 241 does not require proof that a defendant recognized the unlawfulness of his conduct, only that he intentionally committed acts that in fact deprived a person of clearly established, plainly applicable constitutional rights.
- It upheld the perjury convictions, finding sufficient evidence that Ehrlichman’s statements were material and knowingly false and that asserted trial errors did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Claimed presidential foreign-affairs or national-security authority does not create a blanket exception to the Fourth Amendment for warrantless domestic physical intrusions into private premises.
- A conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 241 requires proof of intent to commit the acts that in fact deprive another of a constitutional right that is firmly established and plainly applicable; it does not require proof that the defendant knew the acts were unlawful.
- For perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623, the government must prove a knowingly false statement and materiality to the investigation; appellate review sustains convictions where the record supports these elements and no prejudicial instructional or evidentiary error is shown.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit sustained Ehrlichman’s convictions for conspiring to violate Dr. Fielding’s Fourth Amendment rights and for perjury, holding that asserted national-security presidential authority did not validate a warrantless domestic office burglary and that § 241’s specific intent focuses on intentional commission of rights-depriving acts, not subjective awareness of illegality.


United States v. Ehrlichman, 546 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1976)