recent illegal search and seizure cases 2019

This applies when a person has what is known as a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or thing to be searched. It is the majority's treatment of the state constitutional issue that is most problematic. By Glenn Thrush,Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman. Moreover, a search of vehicles is reasonable insofar as defendant may have secreted the objects of the search, i.e., drugs and other evidence of trafficking, in his vehicles (id. Applying Ross, I would likewise hold that, where a warrant authorizes a search of the entire premises for items that could be found in a vehicle on those premises, it is reasonable to search a vehicle parked thereon, just as it would be for other containers found on the premises. 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). Additionally, all of those cases either directly rely on federal case law, or rely on New York cases that turned on federal case law, in deciding the search-and-seizure issues before them (see Sciacca, 45 NY2d at 127-129; Hansen, 38 NY2d at 21-23; Dumper, 28 NY2d at 299; Rainey, 14 NY2d at 38). . Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Reviewing the warrant materials, Supreme Court concluded that probable cause was lacking in this case because the detective's affidavit made no mention of the vehicles or otherwise "provide[d] any specific probable cause [to believe] that the vehicles were involved in the criminal activity." I write and consult on federal criminal law and criminal justice. Before Supreme Court, the People responded by attempting to distinguish our prior decisions and arguing that, if they were distinguishable and therefore not controlling, Supreme Court should adopt the People's preferred rule interpreting the Fourth Amendment. The legislature's instruction that a warrant may direct a search of "one or more of the following" strongly suggests that a warrant which directs the search of only one category (e.g. 211214. Both conclusions fundamentally alter our jurisprudence. A search of the Chevrolet revealed a loaded handgun. BOGGS, Justice. In all cases, the alleged sales followed the same pattern: a car would arrive on the street outside the residence, Mr. Gordon or another person would emerge from the residence, approach the prospective buyer, and then return to the residence a few minutes later. Siegal. Prosecutors initially argued that the failure of listing an actual crime in the warrant was a typographical error. Even were we writing on a blank slate, we would not adopt the rule advocated by the People. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the legality of a search, despite several problematic issues. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Individuals do not cede legitimate expectations of privacy when they park a vehicle at the house of a friend, acquaintance or stranger. Siegal, now atMintz, Levin,Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, has won an argument in another case where the FBI got a bit over its skis in a search. Prosecutors did not provide a date for when Drago should expect that indictment. Here, by contrast, the question is whether the officers exceeded the scope of a valid search warrant for evidence of an illicit drug business conducted from the premisesan issue not addressed by this Court in Hansen. The affidavit contained no indication as to dates, times, frequency or purpose and was open to the interpretation that other vehicles might have entered or left the premises on a nonregular basis. Posey was arrested after the Officer responded to a look out for Robbery suspects. Siegal represents John Drago who owned and operated a check cashing business, Kayla Companies. Failing to do so, we accomplish the reverse. 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. As part of the investigation, [*2]detectives prepared a search warrant application that alleged the following: (1) on August 13 and August 25, 2015, undercover detectives had engaged in two controlled buys of heroin from Mr. Gordon, (2) a confidential informant had participated in a third controlled purchase from Mr. Gordon, and (3) the detectives had observed several more likely narcotics sales on the evenings of August 25 and 26, 2015. The cases dealt with investigative detention, the insanity defense, cross-border shootings . Even then, the permissible "scope of a search has been carefully limited" by the requirement for probable cause and a particular description of the subjects to be searched (Dumper, 28 NY2d at 299). The search, like at least two others conducted at locations associated with President Biden, was undertaken with the cooperation of the president and his legal team. To address the continued viability of caselaw premised upon our interpretation of both the U.S. and the State Constitutions, we now clarify thatat the very leastthose cases accurately set forth our state constitutional law. Counts 5 through 9 rested in large part on the physical evidence seized from the two vehicles. Citing Hansen and Dumper, we stated: "It is clear that a warrant to search a building does not include authority to search vehicles at the premises (People v Hansen, 38 NY2d 17; People v Dumper, 28 NY2d 296). Nevertheless, the majority argues that defendant's reliance on those cases, without more, was sufficient to preserve a state constitutional argument (see majority op at 16-17). The converse is also true. Siegal, one of the top white collar attorneys in the country and a former federal prosecutor, has uncovered yet another 4th Amendment violation, this one in the Eastern District of New York. 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 . The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday against warrantless searches by police and seizures in the home in a case brought by a man whose guns officers confiscated after a domestic. A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]). Williams, 2019 U.S. App. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. The determinative question on appeal is whether a valid warrant, supported by probable cause and authorizing the search of the "entire premises," permits the search of vehicles parked on the designated premises, when the vehicles may contain the items authorized to be seized by the warrant, but the warrant does not specifically mention the vehicles. Moreover, every other state high court that has addressed this issue has, like the federal courts, held that a warrant authorizing a search of the entire premises permits the police to search vehicles located thereon [FN5]. In doing so, we must "marshal[] distinct state texts and histories and draw our [own] conclusions" in order to "dignify state constitutions as independent sources of law" (Jeffrey S. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 177 [2018]). If that proof is insufficient to convince the magistrate to authorize a search of the vehicles, allowing a search because the vehicles are located on a premises would constitute an unconstitutional bootstrapping.[FN2]. at 299). In Hansen, it appears that the Court rejected the argument that the affidavit on which the warrant was issued provided probable cause of trafficking, because it was factually deficient and the trafficking-related allegation was unreliable hearsay, thus undermining the related argument that there was probable cause to search the van as part of a drug business or because it was otherwise connected to the drugs in the house (id.). About; License; Lawyer Directory; Projects. 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 . The warrant application did not refer to any vehicles. The debate below focused on the merits of adopting the People's interpretation of the federal standard in light of our prior precedent. 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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01093 This case considers, for the first time in Georgia, the effect of the State's 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. Prosecutors appealed, hoping to. The Chevrolet, parked in the backyard behind two fences, was unregistered. Your 4th Amendment Rights The 4 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure . Ross itself does not govern the situation here, and we are skeptical of the wisdom of the federal appellate cases extending it [FN1]. at 126-127). Decided on February 18, 2021 it is no less fixed than a suitcase or handbag found on the premises, both of which can readily be searched under Ross if capable of containing the object of the search"]). As in Hansen, "no observation was reported as to any movement of persons between the house and the [vehicles]" (Hansen, 38 NY2d at 20) that would substantiate a belief that the vehicles searched were utilized in the alleged criminal activity. 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. Five Memphis police officers pleaded not guilty to murder charges in the beating death of Mr. Nichols. Discipline in this area benefits not only the Supreme Court in determining its own jurisdiction, but also this Court in establishing a respected body of state constitutional law. Every federal circuit court of appeals and every state high court that has addressed the questionuntil todayconcluded that vehicles are no different than other containers that might be found on premises, and, thus, heeding the directive from the United States Supreme Court that there is no constitutional distinction between types of containers, held that vehicles parked on the premises may reasonably be searched if they may contain the object of the search. As an initial matter, these cases are factually distinguishable in pivotal aspects from the issue we are deciding and are not in conflict with Ross. People v Dumper (28 NY2d 296 [1971]), cited in Sciacca, is also unavailing. Here, based on the uncontroverted probable cause to believe that defendant was engaged in drug trafficking on and around the premises of his residence, the warrant directed to the "entire premises" was sufficiently particular to "enable the searcher to identify the persons, places or things that [a court] has previously determined should be searched or seized" (see People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396, 401 [1975]). 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"]). Although some Federal Courts of Appeals have interpreted the Fourth Amendment in a manner that might permit the search here, we decline to follow suit. 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. However, we held that the police lacked sufficient evidence to search a vehicle that had been seen coming and going from the residence. At the police station, Detectives Fichter and Latorre conducted an inventory search of Williams' car in accordance with the NYPD's . Our conclusion that the officers in this case exceeded the scope of the warrant finds support both in our prior cases and in the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) (see Hanlon, 36 NY2d at 559 ["(P)robable cause (must be) demonstrated as a matter of fact in the manner prescribed by statute (CPL art. (c) A designated or described person"]). equally for all containers, not just vehicles [FN6]. 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. recent illegal search and seizure cases 2022 recent illegal search and seizure cases 2022. The Fourth Amendment provides important constitutional limits on abusive policing. As noted above, the extent to which a vehicle (or any container for that matter) located in the area authorized to be searched must be connected to the target or to the premises in order for a search of [*8]it to be reasonable has generated some disagreement among courts (see nn 1, 3, supra). at 128). You can explore additional available newsletters here. We explained: "The observations of the police were that this van had made 'trips in and out carrying at least one other person in addition to the driver', and that it was 'the sole vehicle observed entering and leaving these premises on a regular basis'. We next addressed the search of a vehicle associated with a residence in People v Hansen. Of the 63 cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2019-2020 term, there were several criminal and civil law cases that could affect the investigative and employment interests of the law enforcement community. Before the motion court, defendant argued that he was entitled to suppression because the search of the vehicles fell outside the scope of the warrant. 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. 2651 PDF 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'"]). For example, "a warrant that authorizes an officer to search a home for illegal weapons also provides authority to open closets, chests, drawers, and containers in which the weapon might be found" (Ross, 456 US at 821). The Nissan, which was registered to Mr. Gordon's cousin, was parked in the driveway of the residence. the premises" (Percival, 756 F2d at 600; compare United States v Reivich, 793 F2d 957, 963 [8th Cir 1986] [exempting "vehicle(s) of a guest or other caller" from the permissible scope of a premises warrant] with United States v Cole, 628 F2d 897, 899-900 [5th Cir 1980] [upholding the search of a truck of a third party that arrived on the property during the execution of the premises warrant]). Bias May be Implicit in Current Law on Search and Seizure Friday, March 1st, 2019 Beth Karp 48 latin woman opening the front door, white inside Over the past several years, questions about racial bias in law enforcement have commanded a great deal of public attention. "Listen to this mother, who lost two children to fentanyl poisoning, tell the truth about . People v Garvin, 30 NY3d 174, 185 n 8 [2017] ["Any issues regarding whether New York Constitution, article I, 12 provides greater protection . In Hansen, the police surveilled the van in question, recorded its repeated travels to and from the residence, and specifically mentioned the vehicle in the warrant. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Georgia opinions delivered to your inbox! "[I]t is highly awkward, if not impossible, to use a case as the basis for an argument about the meaning of the state constitution if it is unclear from the case itself whether the case is even about the state constitution" (James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 Mich L Rev 761, 783 [1992]). Government prosecutorssaid that they intend to seek a superseding indictment on new allegations. . upon the magistrate determining probable cause"]). Judge Feinman dissents in an opinion in which Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia concur. . I disagree. A search warrant must direct a search of one or more of the following: A designated or described place or premises; A designated or described vehicle, as that term is defined in section 10.00 of the penal law; In this case, the police officers obtained a search warrant for two out of the three: (1) "the person of Tyrone Gordon" and (2) "the entire premises" from which Mr. Gordon was seen emerging. Worse still, the majority's preservation rule will have the effect of transforming those same cases, and any other cases that employ parallel citations to the State and Federal Constitutions, into seminal state constitutional decisions, irrespective of the fact that those cases are wholly devoid of any basis for concluding that the New York Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment in the context of the issues they addressed. No. 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. We concluded that there was probable cause to search the target residence for the drugs observed by the police, as the information in the warrant was not stale, but there was no probable cause to search the van, as the presence of the drugs in the house was not indicative of more than possessionin other words, no evidence of narcotics trafficking (see id. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Nonetheless, we held that there was "not sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause justifying a search of the Speake Dodge van" because there had been no allegations of criminal activity specifically linking the vehicle to the residence (Hansen, 38 NY2d at 20). From the search of the Nissan, the police retrieved quantities of heroin, cocaine, and assorted drug paraphernalia. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. . Instead, this Court has repeatedly held that, to preserve a state constitutional argument, a defendant must specifically argue below that the New York Constitution provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution (see e.g. You're all set! Authority to search a vehicle does not include authority to enter private premises to effect a search of a vehicle within those premises. So important is the role of the neutral and detached magistrate that we have in the past parted ways from federal constitutional jurisprudence when we believed that an emerging rule of federal constitutional law "dilute[s] . at 822 [emphasis added]). By Jason S. Cherry, J.D. As a consequence, police officers obtained a warrant for the "entire premises" of 529 Monroe Street, notwithstanding the fact that when they applied for the warrant, the police officers knew that the address contained two separate apartmentsone belonging to the suspect of the search, the other to an innocent third party. at 37). While the majority characterizes these cases as setting forth state constitutional lawsimply by retroactively decreeing them to do so (majority op at 19)it is not clear if the majority intends these cases to stand for our contrary interpretation of the Federal Constitution, to form some kind of common-law rule, to be an implied application of the Criminal Procedure Law, or to express a heightened state constitutional standard. 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. Because the supporting affidavits did not describe the vehicles to be searched at all, never mind with any particular allegations connecting them to criminal activity, the record supports the affirmed finding that there was no probable cause to search the vehicles. Federal law enforcement has issued its share of search warrants, but now another one has been ruled to have been a violation of a defendant's4th Amendment rights (unreasonable search and seizure). When the People invoked Ross in their response papers, defendant ignored the argument.[FN8]. Search and Seizure. . While this Court has not yet had the opportunity to answer it, the question is certainly not a novel one for courts. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The particularity requirement protects the magistrate's determination regarding the permissible scope of the search. By Alan Feuer,Maggie Haberman and Ben Protess. 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. Our prior decisional law and the CPL's differentiation between premises, vehicles, and persons both support the view that specific descriptions or designations, backed by particularized probable cause, are required for a search of each. Our Court has never adopted a "fixed analytical formula for determining when the proper protection of fundamental rights requires resort to the State Constitution" (Scott, 79 NY2d at 491). A search warrant must be based on probable cause and describe with particularity the areas to be searched (see People v Rainey, 14 NY2d 35, 38 [1964]). . I dissent. The Court held first that . During the course of a narcotics investigation, police officers observed Mr. Gordon and at least one associate selling narcotics from a private residence; on several occasions, Mr. Gordon or an associate exited the residence, walked to the street and delivered an object to a waiting person in exchange for money. As a repeat offender, a Passaic County judge sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 25 years, and at. Rainey did not address whether the need to provide particular probable cause for separate residences extended to providing particularized probable cause for vehicles found at or associated with a residence. Section 690.15 (1) of the CPL states: "1. are best promoted by applying State constitutional standards" (Johnson, 66 NY2d at 407) and when the "constitutional protections we have enjoyed in this State have in fact been diluted by subsequent decisions of a more recent Supreme Court (Scott, 79 NY2d at 504 [Kaye, C.J., concurring]). In this case, by comparison, the warrant application contained no mention whatsoever of the existence of the vehicles ultimately searched, much less evidence connecting them to any criminality. Home - Supreme Court of the United States Docket Search Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary Today at the Court - Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023 The Court will convene for a public session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division affirming Supreme Court's judgment ordering the suppression of physical evidence seized from two vehicles, holding that the search warrant materials failed to provide probable cause to search the vehicles. . Where a search warrant authorizes the search of premises, a separate showing of probable cause is not required to search containers found on the designated premises, if the object of the search could be found therein. LEXIS 20262 (2d Cir. Shield to look into the matter. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. . People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396, 400 [1975] [a person's mere presence on the premises where suspected gambling is occurring is insufficient to justify a search]). The Supreme Court has held that a passing parallel reference to the State and Federal Constitutions is insufficient to satisfy the plain-statement rulei.e., that a case was decided on a state-law ground (see e.g. According to the Government, it willnow more than one year after seeking the indictment, more than six years after theexecution of the search, and almost eight years from beginning its investigation into Johnsbusiness ask the grand jury to issue yet another charge against John, by way of anostensible superseding indictment, and to expand on the description and scope of the conductcharged in the current indictment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision affirming Supreme Court's judgment ordering the suppression of physical evidence seized from two vehicles, holding that the search warrant materials failed to provide probable cause to search the vehicles. Acting pursuant to the authority to search the "entire premises," the police canvassed both apartments and the shed, retrieving from the latter a check writer and set of blank checks believed to have been used in the suspect's check-forging activities. Yesterday, Judge Feuerstein issued anorderconfirming that information gained from the search would not be admissible. We then concluded that even if the affidavit had been sufficient to support a search of the residence, the warrant failed "in any event [to] justify a search of the automobile which had just been driven into the driveway" (id. LARRY SABUCO MANIBOG, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 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). 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. 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, . The factual allegations, Mr. Gordon contended, supported at most a search of Mr. Gordon's person and his residence and not the vehicles located outside the residence. Search and Seizure Latest Search Biden Administration Asks Congress to Reauthorize Warrantless Surveillance Law Facing steeper political headwinds than past cycles, the executive branch is. In the Chevrolet, which defendant owned, the police recovered a loaded handgun from the engine block. Attached to the third party's apartment was a shed. Based on the surveillance and undercover purchases, the detectives applied for and obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of "the person of Tyrone Gordon . 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]). 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. at 20). Nearly 30 years ago, an Appellate Division court applied Ross to reach the same conclusion (see People v Powers, 173 AD2d 886, 888-889 [3d Dept 1991] [interpreting Ross to permit the search of a vehicle owned or controlled by the owner of the premises authorized to be searched by the warrant], lv denied 78 NY2d 1079 [1991]). . This case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment tolerates a dog sniff conducted after completion of a traffic stop. Based on that information, the court issued a search warrant authorizing a search of Mr. Gordon's "person" and the "entire premises." The majority's response to the analysis of Ross conducted by all the federal circuit courts and other state courts that have considered the issue is to express "skeptic[ism]," with an added footnote that explains that the Supreme Court in Ross did not disturb the fundamental principle that searches must be bound by probable cause (majority op at 6 and n 1).