BOARD OF LICENSE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF TIVERTON
v.
PASTORE, LIQUOR CONTROL ADMINISTRATOR OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.

U.S. | 1985-01-08
No. 83-963
469 U.S. 238 Supreme Court of the United States (1985) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 83 L. Ed. 2d 618 · 105 S. Ct. 685 · 1985 U.S. LEXIS 35 · SCDB 1984-016
Cited by 30 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as moot because the underlying case no longer presented a live controversy.

Facts & Procedural History

The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to civil liquor license revocation hearings. The U.S. Supreme …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule Case Or Controversy Requirement Mootness Doctrine Exclusionary Rule

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

We granted certiorari in this case, 468 U. S. 1216 (1984), to decide whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies in civil liquor license revocation hearings. Some state courts have held that the exclusionary rule applies. See New York State Liquor Authority v. Finn’s Liquor Shop Inc., 24 N. Y. 2d 647, 249 N. E. 2d 440, cert. denied, 396 U. S. 840 (1969); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Leonardziak, 210 Pa. Super. 511, 233 A. 2d 606 (1967) (exclusionary rule applies in Liquor Control Board proceeding in which Board imposed fine, but could also have revoked license).

Illinois, on the other hand, admits evidence obtained during a search pursuant to an invalid warrant on the reasoning that the State can and does require consent to a warrantless search as a prerequisite to the issuance of a liquor license. Daley v. Berzanskis, 47 Ill. 2d 395, 269 N. E. 2d 716 (1971).

In proceedings below, the Tiverton Board of License Commissioners had considered evidence obtained during a search of the Attic Lounge, a local liquor-serving establishment, in deciding to revoke its license. A Rhode Island judge in related criminal proceedings subsequently ruled that the evidence had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Rhode Island v. Benoit, No. N2/77-51 (Super. Ct. Newport Cty., R. L, Jan. 16, 1978).

The Attic Lounge then argued that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be admitted in a civil hearing to revoke its liquor license. The Rhode Island Liquor Control Administrator reversed the decision of the Tiverton Commissioners on unrelated grounds, and directed that the license be reinstated. After losing an appeal to the State Superior Court, Civ. Action No. 78-2659 (Super. Ct., Providence Cty., R. L, Aug. 6, 1980), the Tiverton Commissioners obtained review in the Rhode Island Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari naming both the Attic Lounge and the Liquor Control Administrator as respondents. The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to liquor license revocation hearings. 463 A. 2d 161 (1983).

After this Court issued a writ of certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, considered briefs on the merits, and commenced oral argument, we learned that the Attic Lounge has gone out of business. Counsel for both the Tiverton Board of License Commissioners and the respondent Liquor Control Administrator stated at oral argument that no decision on the merits by this Court can now have an effect on the Attic Lounge’s liquor license. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28, 31. The case is therefore moot. At oral argument counsel discussed some circumstances under which a decision on the merits by this Court might conceivably affect substantive rights of interested parties. But as the Court noted in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 320, n. 5 (1974):

“ ‘[S]uch speculative contingencies afford no basis for our passing on the substantive issues [the petitioner] would have us decide,’ Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45, 49 (1969), in the absence of ‘evidence that this is a prospect of immediacy and reality.’ Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 109 (1969); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941).”

It is appropriate to remind counsel that they have a “continuing duty to inform the Court of any development which may conceivably affect the outcome” of the litigation. Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379, 391 (1975) (Burger, C. J., concurring).

When a development after this Court grants certiorari or notes probable jurisdiction could have the effect of depriving the Court of jurisdiction due to the absence of a continuing case or controversy, that development should be called to the attention of the Court without delay. See this Court’s Rules 34.1(g) (petitioner’s statement of the case shall contain all that is material to the issues); 34.2 (respondent’s brief may correct any omission from petitioner’s statement); and 35.5 (parties may file supplemental briefs after briefs on the merits to point out intervening matters not contained in the merits briefs).

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as moot.

It is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Merkle v. Guardianship OF Robert J. Jacoby, 912 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
    …conceivably affect the outcome of the litigation, including facts that may raise a question of mootness. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n. 23, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997); Bd. of License Comm’rs v. Pastore, 469 U.S. 238, 240, 105 S.Ct. 685, 83 L.Ed.2d 618 (1985); Douglas v. Donovan, 704 F. 2d 1276, 1279-80 (D.C.Cir.1983). See generally Raymond T. Elligett, Jr. & John M. Scheb, Professional Responsibility of Appellate Advocates, in Florida Appellate Practice § 25.…
    1 / 2
  • Carter v. Meadows (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
    …ving that the “Court must rely on counsel to present issues fully and fairly, and counsel have a continuing duty to inform the Court of any development which may conceivably affect an outcome”); Bd. of License Comm’rs of Town of Tiverton v. Pastore, 469 U.S. 238, 240 (1985) (reminding counsel of their continuing duty to keep the court informed “without delay” of any developments that could affect the Court’s jurisdiction or render a case moot); Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So. 2d 595, 600 (Fla. 2d…
  • Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985)
    …) (“The merits of an isolated case have only an oblique relevance to the question whether a grant of certiorari is consistent with the sound administration of this Court’s discretionary docket”). Cf. Board of License Comm’rs of Tiverton v. Pastore, 469 U. S. 238 (1985) (per curiam). See this Court’s Rule 34.1(g) (a brief on the merits shall contain “a concise statement of the case containing all that is material to the consideration of the question presented”); Rule 35.5 (supplemental brief may be filed to…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw