high crime

In January 1970 respondent A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force when his position was eliminated during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force. One year earlier, on November 13, 1968, Fitzgerald had testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee that cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane could approximate $2 billion. Concerned that the dismissal might constitute retaliation for the congressional testimony, the subcommittee held public hearings. At a December 8, 1969 news conference President Richard Nixon promised to look into the matter and directed White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman to arrange for Fitzgerald's reassignment to another administration position. An internal White House memorandum from aide Alexander Butterfield recommended that Fitzgerald "bleed, for a while at least" because of perceived disloyalty, and no further White House efforts to reemploy him occurred. Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission alleging unlawful retaliation. The Examiner held that Fitzgerald's dismissal had offended applicable civil service regulations based on a finding that the departmental reorganization was motivated by reasons purely personal to respondent. The Examiner recommended Fitzgerald's reappointment to his old position or to a job of comparable authority. The Commission explicitly found that the evidence did not support Fitzgerald's allegation of retaliation for his 1968 testimony. At a January 31, 1973 news conference President Nixon stated that he had approved Fitzgerald's dismissal. A day later the White House press office issued a retraction of the President's statement. In 1978 Fitzgerald filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia naming Nixon as a defendant and alleging violations of the First Amendment and two federal statutes. The District Court denied Nixon's motion for summary judgment on absolute immunity grounds. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the collateral appeal. Shortly after Nixon petitioned for certiorari the parties agreed that Nixon would pay Fitzgerald $142,000 immediately and an additional $28,000 if the Supreme Court ruled he was not entitled to absolute immunity.

Donald Curtis Samson was on state parole in California in September 2002 following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On September 6, 2002, Officer Alex Rohleder of the San Bruno Police Department observed Samson walking down a street with a woman and a child. The officer, aware from a prior contact that Samson was on parole and believing he faced an at-large warrant, stopped him and asked whether he had an outstanding parole warrant. Samson responded that there was no outstanding warrant and that he was in good standing with his parole agent. Officer Rohleder confirmed by radio dispatch that Samson was on parole and had no outstanding warrant. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 3067(a) and based solely on Samson's status as a parolee, the officer searched him and found a cigarette box in his left breast pocket containing a plastic baggie with methamphetamine. The State charged Samson with possession of methamphetamine under California Health and Safety Code section 11377(a). The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence after finding the search authorized by the statute and not arbitrary or capricious. A jury convicted Samson, and the trial court sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, relying on state precedent that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful if not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing, and concluding that the search here satisfied that standard. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2005 to decide whether the suspicionless search violated the Constitution.

On Monday, June 8, 1964, at about 10 a.m., Gerald Francis Gault, then 15 years old and subject to a six-month probation order entered February 25, 1964, was taken into custody by the Sheriff of Gila County along with Ronald Lewis after a neighbor, Mrs. Cook, complained of a lewd telephone call. Gerald's parents were both at work; no notice was left at the home. Gerald was placed in the Children's Detention Home. When his mother returned home at about 6 p.m., she learned of his custody through his older brother and went to the detention home, where Deputy Probation Officer Flagg told her a hearing would be held the next day at 3 p.m. On June 9, 1964, Officer Flagg filed a formal petition alleging only that Gerald was a delinquent minor in need of the court's protection; the petition was never served on the Gaults. At the hearing in chambers before Juvenile Judge McGhee, Gerald, his mother, his brother, and two probation officers appeared. No complainant was present, no one was sworn, and no transcript or record was made. Gerald was questioned about the call. He was returned to the detention home and released on June 11 or 12. On the day of release, Mrs. Gault received a plain-paper note from Officer Flagg stating that a further hearing was set for June 15 at 11 a.m. At the June 15 hearing, Gerald, his parents, Ronald Lewis and his father, and the probation officers appeared. A referral report listing the charge as "Lewd Phone Calls" was filed but not shown to the family. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge committed Gerald as a delinquent to the State Industrial School for the period of his minority, until age 21. Arizona law permitted no appeal from juvenile court orders. On August 3, 1964, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the Arizona Supreme Court and referred to the Superior Court. After a hearing on August 17 at which Judge McGhee was cross-examined, the Superior Court dismissed the writ. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2).

Roth conducted a business in New York in the publication and sale of books, photographs and magazines. He used circulars and advertising matter to solicit sales and was convicted by a jury in the District Court for the Southern District of New York upon 4 counts of a 26-count indictment charging him with mailing obscene circulars and advertising, and an obscene book, in violation of the federal obscenity statute. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Alberts conducted a mail-order business from Los Angeles. He was convicted by the Judge of the Municipal Court of the Beverly Hills Judicial District, having waived a jury trial, under a misdemeanor complaint which charged him with lewdly keeping for sale obscene and indecent books, and with writing, composing and publishing an obscene advertisement of them, in violation of the California Penal Code. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Roth case and noted probable jurisdiction in the Alberts case.

On September 9, 1995, Officers Nolan and Harvey were working as uniformed officers in the special operations section of the Chicago Police Department. The officers were driving the last car of a four-car caravan converging on an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking to investigate drug transactions. The officers were traveling together because they expected to find a crowd of people in the area, including lookouts and customers. As the caravan passed 4035 West Van Buren, Officer Nolan observed respondent Wardlow standing next to the building holding an opaque bag. Respondent looked in the direction of the officers and fled. Nolan and Harvey turned their car southbound, watched him as he ran through the gangway and an alley, and eventually cornered him on the street. Nolan then exited his car and stopped respondent. He immediately conducted a protective patdown search for weapons. During the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the bag respondent was carrying and felt a heavy, hard object similar to the shape of a gun. The officer then opened the bag and discovered a .38-caliber handgun with five live rounds of ammunition. The officers arrested Wardlow. The Illinois trial court denied respondent’s motion to suppress. Following a stipulated bench trial, Wardlow was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed Wardlow’s conviction. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the reversal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.