The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Spinelli (D) was convicted for traveling to Missouri from Illinois with the intention of gambling. D appealed, challenging the search warrant obtained by the FBI to obtain the evidence used against him at trial. The application on which the warrant was based included four main parts: 1. The FBI had tracked D for five days, during four of which he traveled from Illinois to a certain apartment house in Missouri, and on one day he was further tracked to a specific apartment in the building; 2. Two phone numbers are associated with the specific apartment; 3. The government officials stated that this person was a known bookie; and 4. A reliable informant told the FBI that D was a bookie and used the two phone numbers associated with the apartment in Missouri. At every appropriate stage in the proceedings in the lower courts, D challenged the constitutionality of the warrant which authorized the FBI search that uncovered the evidence necessary for his conviction. At a pretrial suppression hearing, it was held that D lacked standing to raise a Fourth Amendment objection. D was convicted and appealed. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected that ground, a majority holding that the warrant was issued without probable cause. After an en banc rehearing, the Court of Appeals sustained the warrant and affirmed the conviction by a vote of six to two. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.