This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Search and Seizure | United States Courts A Judge of this Court granted the People's motion for leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]), and we now affirm. a premises) does not impliedly encompass the others. Facing steeper political headwinds than past cycles, the executive branch is packaging the spying authority known as Section 702 as more than a counterterrorism tool. InJune 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan delivered a blistering account ofthoseFBI raidsWey's attorney. Mr. Gordon relies primarily on New York precedent; the People look instead to federal caselaw for guidance. Against a backdrop of increasing national attention to police violence, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued an opinion in a closely watched criminal-procedure case that clarifies the meaning of the term "seizure.". Supreme Court explained that in New York, a search warrant must list "each specific area of the building, area or vehicle to be searched" and "[p]robable cause must be shown in each instance." Judges Rivera, Stein and Fahey concur. In the context of Article 1, Section 12, we have done so when, among other considerations, "the aims of predictability and precision in judicial review of search and seizure cases . California v. Lee, California Court of Appeals 2019. at 299). Here, no vehicle was designated or described in the warrant, and the People have not argued that the police had probable cause to engage in a search of anything outside of what was designated or described in the warrant. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. If, as the dissent says, trafficking in drugs provides probable cause to search vehicles, the officers can set forth the results of their investigation, describe the vehicles they have observed, and [*6]make their case to the magistrate. The Constitution (NY Const, art I, 12; US Const, 4th Amdt) requires that a warrant particularly describe the place to be searched and the Criminal Procedure Law provides for the issuance of warrants to search persons, premises or vehicles (CPL 690.15). at 299). By Steve Eder,Matthew Rosenberg,Joseph Goldstein,Mike Baker,Kassie Bracken and Mark Walker. Steve Eder,Matthew Rosenberg,Joseph Goldstein,Mike Baker,Kassie Bracken. As a repeat offender, a Passaic County judge sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 25 years, and at. Mr. Gordon based his argument on several of our prior decisions, including People v Dumper (28 NY2d 296 [1971]) and People v Hansen (38 NY2d 17 [1975], abrogated on other grounds by People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160 [1981] [abrogating automatic standing]). By Jason S. Cherry, J.D. In Ross, the Supreme Court held that when police officers have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the trunk of a vehiclebased on an informant's tip that narcotics were being kept in the trunk of the carthe police may open a paper bag found inside the trunk (Ross, 456 US at 801). LARRY SABUCO MANIBOG, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. at 21 [emphasis added]). No other contraband was found on Mr. Gordon's person or in the interior of the residence. People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 165 [1981] ["(S)ection 12 of article I of the New York State Constitution conforms with the Fourth Amendment regarding the proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, and this identity of language supports a policy of uniformity in both State and Federal courts"]). Video, 68 NY2d at 306 [distinguishing federal constitutional law in part of the grounds that New York imposes a "rigorous, fact-specific standard of review . In light of the Hansen Court's conclusion that there was no probable cause to search the van, the Court certainly did not confront whether the warrant to search the residence covered a search of the van "wherever located." G.R. We are not convinced that constitutional protections turn on such accidents of timing; an automobile not mentioned in a premises search warrant, whether arriving one minute before or one minute after the search commences, should be entitled to the same protection under our constitution. Finally, the dissent argues that we are bound to decide this case purely as an application of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v Ross because Mr. Gordon has not preserved a claim under the State Constitution. Like Sciacca and Dumper, Hansen focused on the basic tenets of probable cause of criminal activity in the warrants at issue and did not address the question here. The importance of upholding our preservation rule that requires a defendant to make a specific state constitutional argument is buttressed by United States Supreme Court precedent concerning an independent state ground for purposes of that Court's jurisdiction (see Michigan v Long, 463 US 1032, 1044 [1983]). The fact that premises are generally fixed while persons and vehicles are moveable presents a problem to officers executing search warrants. You can explore additional available newsletters here. You're all set! at 126-127). Video, Inc., 475 US 868, 872 n 4 [1986] [same, where the opinion "cited the New York Constitution only once, near the beginning of its opinion, and in the same parenthetical also cited the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution"]). Illegal Search and Seizure: Recent Dc Court of Appeals Decision Shield's allowed government prosecutors to submit their objections but they took a pass saying that they intended toreturn all of the records seized in the raid as well as destroy the electronic images it created as a result of the seized information. It is a matter of preserving rights whichall of us enjoy, and there is nobetter place to enforce those rights than in a court of law. The converse is also true. The activity described in the affidavit, without more, was innocuous and as consistent with innocence as with criminal activity" (id.). Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. There is no justification for such an extreme position. Because a driveway and a backyard located within the curtilage are part of the "entire premises," there was no constitutional impediment to the police search of the two vehicles. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, and we now do so as well. New York v Class, 475 US 106, 109 [1986] [New York Court of Appeals opinion failed to satisfy the plain-statement rule where it mentioned the New York Constitution "but once, and then only in direct conjunction with the United States Constitution," and made "use of both federal and New York cases in its analysis, generally citing both for the same proposition"]; New York v P.J. In People v Sciacca (45 NY2d 122 [1978]), we held that a warrant authorizing a search of a defendant's van does not permit a forcible warrantless entry into another person's locked buildinga garagein order to execute the warrant (id. . equally for all containers, not just vehicles [FN6]. That belief, in turn, appears to be grounded in a series of inapposite New York cases decided prior to the seminal Supreme Court case, United States v Ross (456 US 798 [1982]). at 127) is dictum and, in any event, lacks context as to its intended application. It was not immediately clear under what circumstances the lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran, appeared, but he has had a key role in the case examining Mr. Trumps handling of government documents. at 20). South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 367-368 [1976]; People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]). United States v Evans, 92 F3d 540, 543 [7th Cir 1996] ["It seems to us that a car parked in a garage is just another interior container, like a closet or a desk"]; United States v Percival, 756 F2d 600, 612 [7th Cir 1985] ["Although a car is less fixed than a closet or cabinet, . California v. Lee :: 2019 :: California Courts of Appeal Decisions In one of first impression for the Georgia Supreme Court, the issue this case presented centered on the effect of the States delay in obtaining search warrants for data contained in electronic devices when those devices were originally seized in a warrantless, but lawful, manner by police. One of the additional charges filed against Drago was that he was cashing checks totaling more than $10,000 without filing a Currency Transaction Reports (CTR). After the House Homeland Security Committee heard testimony from a Michigan woman whose sons died after unknowingly taking the synthetic opioid in 2020, Taylor Greene tweeted a clip from the hearing. Based on our prior precedent and interpretations thereof by the lower courts, Mr. Gordon argued that the police officers lacked the particularized probable cause necessary to search the vehicles. This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. D E C I S I O N. LEONEN, J.: For a "stop and frisk" search to be valid, the totality of suspicious circumstances, as personally observed by the arresting officer, must lead to a genuine reason to suspect that a person is committing an illicit act. Biden then recalled the outspoken Georgia Republican's recent allegations regarding fentanyl deaths. are best promoted by applying State constitutional standards" (Johnson, 66 NY2d at 407) and when the "constitutional protections we have enjoyed in this State . Two cases recently argued before SCOTUS could narrow or expand warrantless searches - and they could reach back to what police are doing now Feb 2, 2018 2018 started off with a double-feature in the U.S. Supreme Court starring the Fourth Amendment and police authority to search and seize. The cases dealt with investigative detention, the insanity defense, cross-border shootings . His sole contention was that the search of the vehicles was outside the scope of the search permitted by the warrant, noting that the vehicles were not in an attached garage and thus not part of the home. PDF Supreme Court of The United States You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. and the entire premises" from which Mr. Gordon was seen emerging. The Court broadly stated that a "lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found and is not limited by the possibility that separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete the search" (Ross, 456 US at 820-821). Two subsequent cases did. The majority disagrees with every federal court and state high court, and posits that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the search of the vehicles here (majority op at 20). Seventh Circuit Holds that Evidence Gathered Through an Unlawful Search of a Home May Be Admissible Under the Independent Source Doctrine Even if Tainted Evidence Is Described in the Warrant Application. In Ross, the United States Supreme Court held that, where police officers have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within a vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of it and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search (id. Bumphus's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the police seized his car and then delayed several days without any legitimate explanation, however small before searching the vehicle, and that The suppression of the gun recovered in the eventual search was warranted. Divided court issues bright-line ruling on Fourth Amendment seizures Our statement in that case, unrelated to specific facts before the Court, that "a warrant to search a building does not include authority to search vehicles at the premises" (id. With respect to its treatment of the New York State Constitution, the majority, without clarifying whether it interprets the relevant state constitutional provision as diverging from its federal counterpart, reaches two very problematic conclusions: first, that defendant preserved an argument that our State Constitution provides more protection than the Fourth Amendment, by simply citing New York cases, even though those cases contain no discussion of the State Constitution; and second, that those earlier decisions by this Court somehow justify, with no further analysis, a constitutional rule applicable to this case. . During the search of the passenger compartment, the police discovered an open pouch containing marijuana and seized it. Although this Court has, starting in the 1980s, adopted "independent standards" under the State Constitution,[FN10] we have also continued to stress that the history of article I, 12 of the New York Constitution "supports the presumption" that the provision against unlawful searches and seizures conforms with that found in the Fourth Amendment (People v P.J. It is the majority's treatment of the state constitutional issue that is most problematic. There is no "constitutional distinction between 'worthy' and 'unworthy' containers" (id.). Before Supreme Court, Mr. Gordon cited the same New York caselaw discussed above to argue that New York law has "consistently adhered to the position that a search warrant must specify the area to be searched." This Court has never held that a mere reference or citation to both a state constitutional provision and its federal counterpart is enough to preserve an argument that the parallel state provision provides for heightened protection. We agreed, and held that "[f]or purposes of satisfying the State and Federal constitutional requirements, the searching of two or of more residential apartments in the same building is no different from searching two or more separate residential houses. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Siegal. The warrant application also detailed drug sales that took place in the street in front of the premises, including a controlled buy with a confidential informant, two undercover buys, and other transactions observed during surveillance of the premises. The plain import of this language is that a warrant to search a discrete structure ("a building") does not authorize a search of any container located on the grounds upon which the structure is situated ("vehicles at the premises"), because a search of the latter would exceed the scope of the warrant. 2021 :: New York Court of Appeals Decisions - Justia Law The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the legality of a search, despite several problematic issues. Here, there is no dispute that the search warrant was supported by probable cause to believe that defendant was involved in narcotics trafficking on his premises, and, unlike the vehicle in Dumper, defendant's vehicles were parked on the premises when the police arrived to execute the warrant. D E C I S I O N. LEONEN, J.: To be valid, searches must proceed from a warrant issued by a judge.1 While there are exceptions to this rule, warrantless searches can only be carried out when founded on probable cause . To satisfy the constitutional requirement for particularity, the description setting forth the search must "leave no discretion to the executing officer[s]" (Brown, 96 NY2d at 84). Order affirmed. Cases - Search and seizure - {{meta.siteName}} at 822 [emphasis added]). RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal I see no persuasive rationale why, if a bicycle and a car are parked next to each other on a driveway, it is reasonable to search the bicycle's closed basket but unreasonable to search the car's trunk. The Nissan, which was registered to Mr. Gordon's cousin, was parked in the driveway of the residence. We next addressed the search of a vehicle associated with a residence in People v Hansen. provided an affidavit to an Eastern District of NYmagistrate judge to request a search of Kayla. Failing to do so, we accomplish the reverse. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action'"]). Thus, the majority upsetsto say the leastthis Court's well settled preservation rules holding that defendant preserved an argument that the State Constitution provides heightened protection simply by citing several New York cases in which the sole reference to the New York Constitution is in a parallel cite with the Federal Constitution. The officers stopped the man, subjected him to a patdown search, and then inspected the interior of the vehicle for other weapons. . The particularity requirement protects the magistrate's determination regarding the permissible scope of the search. The majority says that "automobiles, unlike other containers, are typically titled and registered," "more often in public view," and used for traveling "to visit other places and people" (majority op at 15). The garage was completely distinct, indeed incidental, to any illegal activity" (id. In fact, Cady expressly con-trasted its treatment of a vehicle already under police con-trol with a search of a car "parked adjacent to the dwelling That determination must be based upon the factual allegations presented in the warrant application (Nieves, 36 NY2d at 402). The reason the warrant did not describe the vehicles in this case, as in Dumper, is that the warrant application materials failed to mention the vehicles, which consequently fell beyond the scope of the warrant. A Bankruptcy or Magistrate Judge? Pero hay contrastes con el caso de los papeles recuperados en la residencia de Trump. Federal Judge Rules FBI Agents Conducted Illegal Search Of - Forbes I dissent. The People and dissent contend that we should extend the reasoning of Ross to hold, as some Federal Courts of Appeals have, that vehicles located outside a residence are no different from any other "closets, chests, drawers, [or] containers" located within (id. Little Falls NJ: Chris Radel search illegal, NJ Supreme Court rules Counts 5 through 9 rested in large part on the physical evidence seized from the two vehicles. People v Dumper (28 NY2d 296 [1971]), cited in Sciacca, is also unavailing. The majority's "clarif[ication]" of the cases (which comes nearly a half century later), transforming them into state constitutional decisions, is nothing short of judicial legerdemain (majority op at 19). Indeed, the cases cited by defendant predate the "dawn of active New York State constitutionalism" in the 1980s, before which the "state constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures mostly lay judicially dormant" (Robert M. Pitler, Independent State Search and Seizure Constitutionalism: The New York State Court of Appeals' Quest for Principled Decisionmaking, 62 Brook L Rev 1, 103, 213 [1996]).