United States v. Calandra

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Criminal Procedure

414 U.S. 338 (1974)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureGrand JuryExclusionary RuleFourth Amendmentsuppressionunlawful search and seizurederivative usefruits of the poisonous tree

Facts

Federal agents obtained a warrant to search Calandra's business for gambling records and executed a four-hour search of the premises. Although they found no gambling paraphernalia, they seized a card and other materials they believed related to extortionate credit transactions. A special grand jury later subpoenaed Calandra to ask questions based on the seized evidence in a loansharking investigation. Calandra moved to suppress the evidence and the District Court ordered suppression, return of the property, and ruled that he need not answer grand jury questions based on the suppressed evidence.

Issue

May a witness summoned before a grand jury refuse to answer questions on the ground that the questions are based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure? More specifically, does the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule apply in grand jury proceedings to bar such questioning?

Rule

The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed primarily to deter future unlawful police conduct, not a personal constitutional right of the aggrieved party. Because extending the rule to grand jury proceedings would substantially interfere with the grand jury's investigative function while producing at most minimal and speculative additional deterrence, a grand jury witness may not refuse to answer questions merely because they are based on evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure, including derivative fruits of that evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Federal agents unlawfully search Nina Patel's bookkeeping office in Phoenix and seize client ledgers. Months later, a federal grand jury investigating tax fraud subpoenas Nina and asks her questions drawn directly from entries in those ledgers. Nina refuses to answer solely because the search was unconstitutional.

May Nina refuse to answer on that ground?

Explanation. The majority held that the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy aimed primarily at deterring future unlawful police conduct, not a personal constitutional right to block all later uses of illegally obtained evidence. Extending the rule to grand jury questioning would substantially disrupt the grand jury's broad investigative role while producing only speculative and minimal additional deterrence. Therefore, a witness may not refuse to answer grand jury questions merely because they are based on unlawfully seized evidence.