Conn v. Gabbert

Summary

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for eight Justices, held that executing a search warrant against an attorney does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment liberty to practice one's profession, even when timed to prevent consultation with a grand jury witness. Brief interruptions resulting from legal process differ from exclusion from a profession. Gabbert lacked standing to assert his client's constitutional rights, and his challenge to the reasonableness of the search belonged under the Fourth Amendment rather than substantive due process. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit without deciding whether the asserted right was clearly established. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment without any other Justice joining, reasoning that there was no evidence of injury to Gabbert's professional interests or substantial prejudice to his client. He rejected the suggestion that another constitutional provision's applicability would itself defeat an otherwise valid due process claim.