opinion: MASSACHUSETTS v. PAINTEN.
  No. 37.
  Argued October 18, 1967.
  Decided January 15, 1968.
  Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of Massachusetts, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Willie J. Davis and James B. Krasnoo, Assistant Attorneys General.
  Louis M. Nordlinger argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
  Anthony O. Amsterdam and Melvin L. Wulf filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et ah, as amici curiae, urging affirmance.
  Per Curiam.
  In 1958 respondent was tried and convicted in Middle-sex Superior Court, Massachusetts, for armed robbery of a bank and related offenses. He appealed, and in 1961 his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, sub nom. Commonwealth v. Binkiewicz, 342 Mass. 740, 175 N. E. 2d 473.
  Respondent eventually filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. Testimony was taken by the District Court on December 30, 1965. It ruled that respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the entry into his apartment, by his arrest, and by the search and seizure of certain articles in his apartment which were introduced in evidence against him. Accordingly, it set aside his conviction and ordered his release. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). The Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the constitutional issues presented.
  At the time of respondent’s trial in 1958, Massachusetts did not have an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by an illegal search or seizure, Commonwealth v. Wilkins, 243 Mass. 356, 138 N. E. 11 (1923); Commonwealth v. Spofford, 343 Mass. 703, 706, 180 N. E. 2d 673, 675 (1962), and the parties did not focus upon the issues now before us. The evidentiary hearing in 1965 took place almost eight years after the events.
  After oral argument and study of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the record is not sufficiently clear and specific to permit decision of the important constitutional questions involved in this case. The writ is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Smith v. Mississippi, 373 U. S. 238 (1963).
  Dismissed.
  252 F. Supp. 851 (D. C. Mass. 1966).
  368 F. 2d 142 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1966).
  386 U. S. 931 (1967).