(punishment for attempt of of cation as to state proceedings of the exclusionary rule by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, not to be retroactive). And see Appendix to concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, United States v. United States Coin & Currency, supra. 7 . In Johnson v. New Jersey, supra, 384 U.S. at 728, 86 S.Ct. at 1778, the Court also noted that Linkletter had denied retroactivity to rights of immunity from unjustifiable intrusions upon privacy, characterized as “. . . the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,” citing the dissenting opinion of Justice Brandéis in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944. 8 . North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (<HOLDING>) ; McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U.S. 2, 89 S.Ct. 32,
holding the right to assistance of counsel as announced in gideon v wainwright 372 us 335 83 sct 792 9 led2d 799 to be retroactive holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding the rule on the scope of per missible searches incident to arrest announced in chimel v california 395 us 752 89 sct 2034 23 led2d 685 not to be retroactive holding the guarantee against double jeopardy applicable to the states as announced in benton v maryland 395 us 784 89 sct 2056 23 led2d 707 to be retroactive holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in douglas v california 372 us 353 83 sct 814 9 led2d 811 to be retroactive