Lopez v. United States (1962)
- Docket
- 236
- Decided
- 1962-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: (1) Did the IRS agent’s actions toward the petitioner constitute entrapment? (2) Was the use of the wire recording of a conversation between the petitioner and the IRS agent as evidence a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Conclusion: No, No. Justice John M. Harlan delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Court held that entrapment only occurs when law enforcement professionals purposefully induce the commission of a crime. The petitioner’s offers of bribery happened before the agent responded in any favorable way, so the agent did not entrap the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not object to the jury instruction on entrapment at the time, he could not retroactively object. The Court also held that the wire recordings did not result from Davis misrepresenting himself. Lopez knew that Davis could use his statements against him if he chose to do so. The device only served to reliably record a conversation in which a government agent was a legal participant. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the advances in recording technology required the Court to be vigilant about monitoring the constitutionality of their usage. In this case, he held that the recording only corroborated the legal testimony of the agent and was therefore admissible. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a dissent where he stated that this case followed in the vein of On Lee v. United States , and both cases were wrongly decided. He argued that the recording was not merely a corroboration of earlier evidence but “independent third-party evidence.” He argued that the use of electronic recording devices revived the evils of the general warrant, which the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were written to prevent. He also argued that, in a conversation, the speaker assumes the risk that the other participant might repeat the conversation, but a wire recording adds a third party and another risk to the speaker’s privacy that he did not assume. Justice William O. Douglas and Justice Arthur J. Goldberg joined the dissent.