at 21). I dissent. 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. 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 People opposed, arguing that the search warrant was not restricted to the private dwelling, but authorized the search of the "entire premises," which includes the house located at the address as well as the surrounding curtilage, and that the search of the vehicles parked thereon was reasonable as they could and did contain contraband sought by the warrant. 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. Although a defendant must preserve a state constitutional analysis, Mr. Gordon has maintained throughout this litigation that the holdings of our jurisprudence should not follow the federal appellate extensions of United States v Ross, and that the rationale and considerations that undergird our jurisprudence counsel against adopting any extension of Ross that might displace them. 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. 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." Search and Seizure - The New York Times 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). BOGGS, Justice. 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. In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 (2005), this Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable seizures. In Sciacca, our statement that "a warrant to search a building does not include authority to search vehicles at the premises" was arguably dicta because the facts there involved whether a search warrant for a vehicle authorized an intrusion into a premises, and not vice versa. Two Cases of Illegal Search and Seizure by Chicago Police 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]). 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. The dissent offers an array of arguments for how probable cause to search the vehicles could be established by their proximity to alleged drug trafficking. The items that could be seized in the raid were listed as; Why You Need To Take A Look At New RMD Rules: Theyre Flexible, UBS Fuels The Next Decade Of Black Innovation With $3 Million Commitment, This Week In Credit Card News: Visa, Mastercard Pause Crypto Push; Tracking Gun Purchases, Borrowers Receive Student Loan Forgiveness Approval Emails After Court Green-Lights Settlement, Biden May Propose Using Net Investment Income Tax Revenues To Shore Up Medicare, Student Loan Forgiveness: 6 Big Takeaways From Landmark Supreme Court Hearing, Athlete Investors Cant Save Tonals Falling $500 Million Valuation, Mintz, Levin,Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. 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, . It's difficult to have a case without evidence. In the case of automobiles, unlike desks, closets or trunks, the risks of innocent invasions of privacy are substantially higher, given the commonplace occurrence of traveling by car to visit other places and people. Warrants "interpose the detached and independent judgment of a neutral Magistrate between the interested viewpoint [*4]of those engaged in ferreting out crime and potential encroachments on the sanctity and privacy of the individual" (People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 558 [1975]). 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]). The warrant application did not refer to any vehicles. against unreasonable searches and seizures." This case concerns the "seizure" of a "person," which can take the form of "physical force" or a "show of authority" that "in some way restrain[s] the liberty" of the person. Those limits have not been honored in this case. 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. at 825; see People v Langen, 60 NY2d 170, 180-181 [1983] [applying Ross and declining to adopt a different rule under the New York State Constitution]). Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Georgia opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. 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. We have on several occasions addressed the permissible scope of a search based on allegations of illegal activity occurring at a residence or premises (see e.g. Those federal courts extending Ross to automobiles on the theory that an automobile is no different than a paper bag have found difficulty in arriving at a single standard for determining what vehicles may be searched: they disagree regarding whether police officers may search any vehicle found onsite during the execution of a premises warrant or only those vehicles that are "owned or controlled by the owner of . Jewel v. NSA | United States Courts Cases involving violations of basic rights of citizensin order to achieve a criminal enforcement action is simply wrong. Shifting Scales; Body Politic; Top Advocates Report; Site Feedback; Support Oyez & LII; LII Supreme Court Resources That Court did, however, leave no doubtat least in the view of any other court to consider the issuethat the Fourth Amendment permits the search of containers found on the premises, such as the vehicles here. Nonetheless, as part of the search of the "entire premises," police officers searched two vehicles found onsite: a Nissan Maxima and a Chevrolet sedan. About; License; Lawyer Directory; Projects. Video, Inc., 68 NY2d 296, 304 [1986], quoting People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 406-407 [1985]). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[e]ven though such a distinction perhaps could evolve in a series of cases in which paper bags, locked trunks, lunch buckets, and orange crates were placed on one side of the line or the other, the central purpose of the Fourth Amendment forecloses such a distinction" (id.). Siegal represents John Drago who owned and operated a check cashing business, Kayla Companies. The defendant controverted the warrant, arguing that it was "constitutionally deficient for not 'particularly describing the place to be searched'" (Rainey, 14 NY2d at 36, citing NY Const, art I, 12; US Const, 4th Amend]). As the Court made clear, the fact that the warrant in Sciacca "authorized the search of a particular van and nothing else" did not mean that "a vehicle may never be searched while on private property" (id. California v. Lee, California Court of Appeals 2019. The warrant further described the premises to include an "attached carport," "a cement driveway," "a cement walkway that leads to the front door," and a "chain link fence." Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. It is the majority's treatment of the state constitutional issue that is most problematic. While the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," these actions have long been a problem for both school authorities and law-enforcement officers. In People v Rainey, police officers tendered factual allegations sufficient to establish that the defendant's residence likely contained forged or illicit goods. Adopting the People's position would lead to the incongruous result that proof that a vehicle had an ongoing connection with a property would be insufficient to justify a search, while a warrant application that makes no mention of the vehicle would somehow provide greater cause to search that vehicle. 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. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Even were we writing on a blank slate, we would not adopt the rule advocated by the People. 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 . Feuerstein askedMagistrate Judge Anne Y. By Alan Feuer,Maggie Haberman and Ben Protess. We are not persuaded by the People's attempts to distinguish our prior cases. Defendant sought to suppress all evidence seized from the Nissan and Chevrolet. The safety of students and staff and the need to . 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. Friday, March 29, 2019: Hammock v. Jensen et al: Southern District of Iowa : Civil Rights, Criminal Law Related Civil Cases, Search and Seizure : Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss : Olmo-Artau v. Farr, et al. 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. A Judge of this Court granted the People's motion for leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]), and we now affirm. In Hansen, we held that police officers had sufficient cause to search Hansen's residence after surveilling the residence for some time and observing pipes, scales, and other narcotics materials (Hansen, 38 NY2d at 20). Even were we to put aside the contrary reasoning of Hansen and Dumper, the dissent never addresses the fundamental tenets of our search warrant jurisprudence: it is the magistrate, and not the police officer, who determines the scope of the search conducted pursuant to a warrant (Hanlon, 36 NY2d at 559; P.J.
Helicopter Over Shepherds Bush Now,
Scorpio Horoscope 2022 Education,
Articles R