447 U.S. 727 (1980)
In September 1976, Jack Payner was indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on a charge of falsifying his 1972 federal income tax return in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.1 The indictment alleged that Payner denied maintaining a foreign bank account when he knew he had one at the Castle Bank and Trust Company of Nassau, Bahamas.2 The government's case relied on a loan guarantee agreement dated April 28, 1972, in which Payner pledged funds in his Castle Bank account as security for a $100,000 loan.3
Payner waived his right to a jury trial and moved to suppress the guarantee agreement.4 The district court consolidated the suppression hearing with the trial on the merits.5 After hearing evidence, the court found Payner guilty based on all evidence but determined that the government had discovered the guarantee agreement by exploiting a flagrantly illegal search of Michael Wolstencroft's briefcase on January 15, 1973.6 The court suppressed all government evidence except Payner's 1972 tax return and related testimony, then set aside the conviction because the remaining evidence was insufficient.7
The illegal search stemmed from the IRS's Operation Trade Winds investigation into American citizens' financial activities in the Bahamas, which focused on the Castle Bank in 1972.8 Special Agent Richard Jaffe enlisted private investigator Norman Casper to gather information.9 Casper arranged for Sybol Kennedy to host Wolstencroft, a Castle Bank vice president, in Miami.10 On January 15, 1973, while Wolstencroft dined with Kennedy, Casper stole the briefcase containing bank documents, delivered it to Jaffe, who supervised the copying of approximately 400 documents before returning it.11 The documents revealed connections to the Bank of Perrine in Florida, leading to subpoenas that uncovered the loan guarantee agreement.12
The district court found that the United States, through Jaffe, knowingly and willfully participated in the unlawful seizure.13 The court concluded that the government had counseled agents that the Fourth Amendment standing limitation allowed unconstitutional searches of one person to obtain evidence against third parties.14 The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the suppression in a brief order.15 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.16
Whether the District Court properly suppressed the fruits of an unlawful search that did not invade the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights?17
A court may not exclude evidence under the Fourth Amendment unless an unlawful search or seizure violated the defendant's own constitutional rights rather than those of a third party.18 The defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy.19 The supervisory power does not authorize a federal court to suppress otherwise admissible evidence on the ground that it was seized unlawfully from a third party not before the court.20 The interest in deterring illegal searches does not justify exclusion at the instance of a party who was not the victim of the challenged practices.21
No. Respondent Payner lacked any privacy interest in the Castle Bank documents seized from Wolstencroft.22 A depositor has no expectation of privacy in copies of checks and deposit slips retained by his bank.23 The district court and court of appeals erred by using the supervisory power to suppress evidence tainted by gross illegalities that did not infringe Payner's own constitutional rights.24 The values assigned to the competing interests do not change when the question is analyzed under the supervisory power instead of the Fourth Amendment.25
The need to deter the underlying conduct and the detrimental impact of excluding the evidence remain precisely the same whether the analysis proceeds under the Fourth Amendment or the supervisory power.26
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Burger concurred in the judgment.29 He emphasized that Payner, whose guilt is not in doubt, cannot take advantage of the Government's violation of the constitutional rights of Wolstencroft because he is not a party to the case.30 Orderly government under the system of separate powers calls for internal self-restraint and discipline in each Branch.31
The Court has no general supervisory authority over operations of the Executive Branch.32 He agreed that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.33 The holding should not be read as condoning the conduct of the IRS agents disclosed by the record.34
Joined by Justices Brennan And Blackmun
Justice Marshall dissented, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun.35 He argued that the supervisory power should be exercised to prevent federal courts from becoming accomplices to deliberate government misconduct, even when the defendant lacks Fourth Amendment standing.36 Marshall stressed that the district court found intentional illegal actions taken in bad-faith hostility toward the constitutional rights of Wolstencroft for the purpose of obtaining evidence against persons such as Payner through manipulation of standing requirements.37
He contended that permitting use of the illegally obtained evidence would pollute the federal courts.38 He argued that the standing limitations were never intended to be a sword for the Government to sacrifice one person's rights to prosecute another.39