◆ SpookStack

mia 8 Sa ali * a . Mewis'to Mr. J.B. Adams Re:_LOS ANGELES TRIALOF WILLIAM AND EMILY HARRIS RE OMMENDATION: . xe ah, None, For informati "s ot, NS ee Bed . _— ~ APPROVED: Aint ‘Comp. Syston. Lpooratory.p... oy _ se how be C3 * Assoc. Dir... Ext. Affairs 0... f Legal Coun.f Ree TE Dep.AD Adm -tnv.. ZYAYM Plan. & Eva Qu Dep. nl seal aneerets mo The Washington Post, on 4/22/16, 3 in’ “an. article captioned, "Harris, Hearst Trials Could ‘Be Separated," reported that California = - Superior Court Judge Mark Brandler, on 4/21/76, reversed an3/1/76 -... + Yuling he had made suppressing the introduction into evidence of materials. - - confiscated by FBI Agents incident to the 9/18/78 arrest of William and Emily Harris in San Franciscon, In his 3/1/' 76 order granting: ‘a defense Motion to Suppress, Judge Brandler opined that nearly one thousand items of evidence . * seized by FBI Agents following the Harris arrest must be suppressed .’ dueto the fact that the Agents searched the Harris apartment without. - benefit of a search warrant. By memo dated 3/4/76 the Legal Counsel Division advised'that Judge Brandler's decision of 3/1/76 was incorrect under both Fedéral’ and California law, inasmuch as the 3/1/76 decision did not take. into. consideration the exigent circumstances justifying the Agents' decision to, enter the Harris apartment without benefit of a search 7 warrant, ss “The 3/4/16 1 memorandum cited the California Supreme Court case of f People v. Hill, 528 P.2nd 1 (1974) which authorized a warrantless .» 4%» police entry on facts almost directly On poirt with those surrounding the . . £ atthe € entry by FBI Agents. The 4/22/76 Washington Post article noted “(CowrmvuED - OVER) " 4 alt Ss ye te es ee Ew One eee aay PN. eee Sr Thee se erent ares + pet na a