251 U.S. 385 (1920)
An indictment upon a single specific charge was brought against Frederick W. Silverthorne and his father.1 Early in the morning of February 25, 1919, both men were arrested at their homes and detained in custody for several hours.2 While they were detained, representatives of the Department of Justice and the United States marshal went to the office of the Silverthorne Lumber Company and seized all the books, papers, and documents found there without any authority.3
The seized materials and the company employees were taken to the office of the District Attorney of the United States.4 An application was made as soon as possible to the District Court for the return of the items that had been taken. The District Attorney opposed the application to the extent he had found evidence against the Silverthornes, and the evidence obtained was before the grand jury.5 Color had been given to the approach by an invalid subpoena for particular documents relating to the charge in the indictment.6
The government planned or ratified the seizure of the documents.7 Photographs and copies of material papers were made, and a new indictment was framed based upon the knowledge thus obtained.8 The District Court ordered a return of the originals but impounded the photographs and copies.9
Subpoenas to produce the originals were served on the plaintiffs in error. Upon their refusal to produce them, the District Court made an order that the subpoenas should be complied with, although it had found that all the papers had been seized in violation of the parties' constitutional rights.10 The refusal to obey this order led to the company being fined two hundred and fifty dollars for contempt of court and Frederick W. Silverthorne being ordered imprisoned until he should purge himself of a similar contempt.11 A writ of error was brought to the Supreme Court to reverse the District Court's judgment.12
Whether the United States may use knowledge gained from an unlawful seizure of documents to support subpoenas and court orders compelling their production?13
The essence of the Fourth Amendment is that evidence acquired through an unlawful seizure shall not be used before the Court.14 Such evidence shall not be used at all.15 Knowledge gained by the Government's own wrong cannot be used by it in the way proposed.16 Facts obtained from an independent source may be proved like any others.17
No. The government planned or ratified the seizure of all books, papers, and documents from the Silverthorne Lumber Company office without authority.18 Frederick W. Silverthorne and his father were detained following their arrests on February 25, 1919.19 Representatives made photographs and copies of material papers and framed a new indictment based upon the knowledge thus obtained.20 After the District Court ordered return of the originals but impounded the photographs and copies, it nevertheless issued an order compelling compliance with subpoenas to produce the originals, although it had found that all the papers had been seized in violation of the parties' constitutional rights.21
This use of knowledge obtained from the illegal seizure to support the subpoenas and contempt finding violates the Fourth Amendment.22
The judgment fining the Silverthorne Lumber Company two hundred and fifty dollars for contempt and ordering Frederick W. Silverthorne imprisoned must be reversed.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice
Justice Pitney, joined by the Chief Justice, dissented.24