recent illegal search and seizure cases 2019

In this case, the Suffolk County Police Department applied for and obtained a warrant to search the "person of" defendant and "the entire premises located at" an address believed to be defendant's residence, "a 1 story ranch style house." The safety of students and staff and the need to . 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. The Chevrolet, parked in the backyard behind two fences, was unregistered. provided an affidavit to an Eastern District of NYmagistrate judge to request a search of Kayla. As a result of the search of the residence, the police found a handgun, but a separate individual (not Mr. Gordon) was charged with possession of that weapon. 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. 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]). The debate below focused on the merits of adopting the People's interpretation of the federal standard in light of our prior precedent. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Collins v. Virginia 238453. 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. 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). The requirement that warrants must describe with particularity the places, vehicles, and persons to be searched is vital to judicial supervision of the warrant process (see People v P.J. This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. 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). 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. and the entire premises" from which Mr. Gordon was seen emerging. These protections take shape in two ways . 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. 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 issue in Hansen was whether there was probable cause for the search warrant directed at "two separate target locations discretely described," namely a residence and an "automotive van wherever located" (id. In this case, thewarrant'slist of items to be seizedwas extensive, however, there was no mention of any underlying crime that instigated the search. Decided on February 18, 2021 Nor did it confront whether the van could reasonably be searched if the van was located on the residence when the van was searchedhow could it, after all, given that its opinion does not even indicate whether the van was in fact located on the residence when it was searched.[FN7]. Defendant's [*7]expectation of privacy in the vehicles is not disputed. We delineated an "independent body" of search-and-seizure law under the State Constitution, and we have explained that, because the state and federal provisions contain similar language and share a common history, any divergence in meaning must derive from a "noninterpretive analysis" focused on "circumstances peculiar to New York" (People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434, 438-439 [1991]). 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. In People v Dumper, we held that evidence seized from a vehicle that arrived on a premises during the search of those premises must be suppressed. The factual materials prepared for the search warrant made no mention of any vehicles associated with Mr. Gordon or the premises as allegedly being involved in the observed criminal activity. Posey was arrested after the Officer responded to a look out for Robbery suspects. By Jason S. Cherry, J.D. Siegal, one of the top white collar attorneys in the country and a former federal prosecutor, has uncoveredyet another 4th Amendment violation, this one in the Eastern District of New York. Posted on 26 Feb in greenshield pharmacy intervention codes. 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. In the appropriate case, Dumper may be relevant in assessing how we would decide that issue, but it is not relevant here. Judges Rivera, Stein and Fahey concur. Our prior decisions, relied upon by Mr. Gordon and the courts below, depended upon both the State and Federal Constitutions as well as the Criminal Procedure Law. Five Memphis police officers pleaded not guilty to murder charges in the beating death of Mr. Nichols. 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.). 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 right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 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 authorities of the two countries have worked together to round up statues, vases and bronzes, some of which had appeared in American museums. No. In an omnibus motion, Mr. Gordon moved to suppress that evidence. . at 127). PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JAIME SISON, LEONARDO YANSON, AND ROSALIE BAUTISTA, Accused. Indeed, we observed in Dumper thatpursuant to both constitutional and statutory directivesa "warrant must describe the premises to be searched" and "this warrant did not include the automobile" (Dumper, 28 NY2d at 299). Finally, in People v Sciacca (45 NY2d 122 [1978]), we held that tax investigators who had a valid warrant to search an automobile exceeded the scope of that warrant by entering into a private garage in order to execute the search of the vehicle. 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. at 299). 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 . Nonetheless, as part of the search of the "entire premises," police officers searched two vehicles found onsite: a Nissan Maxima and a Chevrolet sedan. 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." are unpreserved here because, in the suppression hearing, defendant did not argue that the State Constitution provides greater protections than its federal counterpart"][FN9]; People v Hansen, 99 NY2d 339, 344, 345 n 4 [2003] [holding that the defendant failed to preserve "grounds to impose any heightened due process procedures" under the State Constitution, even though his due-process challenge below referenced both the State and Federal Constitutions]). at 37). 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'. Pero hay contrastes con el caso de los papeles recuperados en la residencia de Trump. [citing to federal and state case law]). a premises) does not impliedly encompass the others. The question before us Siegal represents John Drago who owned and operated a check cashing business, Kayla Companies. 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. 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. This jurisdictional rule is grounded in the principle of federalism (see Long, 463 US at 1041, quoting Minnesota v National Tea Co., 309 US 551, 557 [1940] ["'It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. 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. People v Dumper (28 NY2d 296 [1971]), cited in Sciacca, is also unavailing. Search and Seizure. 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. Get free summaries of new New York Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. Nevertheless, the majority insists that vehicles are special containers, arbitrarily favoring vehicles over other transportable containers, such as backpacks and rollable luggage, and containers normally located outdoors, such as mailboxes. . 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). In that case, police saw drugs in the home when they were investigating a burglary and later obtained a warrant for the home and the van (id. Defendant sought to suppress all evidence seized from the Nissan and Chevrolet. The Nissan, which was registered to Mr. Gordon's cousin, was parked in the driveway of the residence. The garage was completely distinct, indeed incidental, to any illegal activity" (id. . 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. 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. G.R. InJune 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan delivered a blistering account ofthoseFBI raidsWey's attorney. Ross itself does not govern the situation here, and we are skeptical of the wisdom of the federal appellate cases extending it [FN1]. 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. 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. The converse is also true. . Video, 68 NY2d at 305; see also People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309 [1983]; People v Scott, 79 NY2d 474, 487 [1992]; People v Keta, 79 NY2d 474, 498 [1992] [declining to incorporate a federal rule permitting warrantless searches of business establishments in light of the paramount importance of "advance judicial oversight" under Article 1, Section 12 of the State Constitution]; P.J. 2021 NY Slip Op 01093 Las autoridades investigan el hallazgo de documentos clasificados en un despacho que ocup Biden tras dejar la vicepresidencia. In reply, Mr. Gordon specifically rejected the importation of the federal circuit court law into this context and contended that the People's position would amount to a "detour from established precedent." 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. Section 690.15 (1) of the CPL states: "1. 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 notion that the Government will now, at this late date,seek to add new charges and additional detail, but only in reaction to being embarrassed byhaving lost the suppression motion, smacks of impropriety and desperation on theGovernments part. The warrant here authorized the search of a particular van and nothing else. 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 . Shifting Scales; Body Politic; Top Advocates Report; Site Feedback; Support Oyez & LII; LII Supreme Court Resources Prosecutors initially argued that the failure of listing an actual crime in the warrant was a typographical error. The cases dealt with investigative detention, the insanity defense, cross-border shootings . 2651 PDF About; License; Lawyer Directory; Projects. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the analysis developed by the Eleventh Circuit was appropriate, the trial courts findings of fact were supported by the record, and the trial court did not err in granting the motion to suppress. Supreme Court granted Mr. Gordon's motion to suppress. . Instead, we exercise our independent authority to follow our existing state constitutional jurisprudence, even if federal constitutional jurisprudence has changed, because "we are persuaded that the proper safeguarding of fundamental constitutional rights requires that we do so" (Scott, 79 NY2d at 480; see generally William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv L Rev 489 [1977]; Jeffrey S. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 16-20 [2018] [counseling against state high courts engaging in "lockstepping" and describing instead the virtues of independent assessments of parallel constitutional provisions]; Goodwin Liu, State Courts and Constitutional Structure, 128 Yale LJ 1304, 1311 [2019] [noting that "redundancy (of constitutional interpretation) makes innovation and variation possible and, for that reason, is a vital feature of our federal system"]). In the Chevrolet, which defendant owned, the police recovered a loaded handgun from the engine block. 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. Over several days, police officers observed Mr. Gordon selling heroin from his home; in addition to the surveillance, undercover officers engaged in drug transactions with Mr. Gordon and conducted a controlled buy using an informant. 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). Additionally no observation was reported as to any movement of persons between the house and the van. Additionally, in Dumper, we invalidated the search warrant based on the absence of probable cause of criminal activity to sustain any search. No. In the proceedings below, Supreme Court held that although the police had probable cause to search Mr. Gordon and his residence, the warrant did not encompass the search of two vehicles located outside the residence, and the police lacked probable cause to search those vehicles. 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. The majority sets out for new territory both in terms of preservation of the issue and in determining when our decisions establish a state constitutional standard greater than that of the Fourth Amendment. at 821). The warrant application did not refer to any vehicles. I dissent. LEXIS 20262 (2d Cir. This not only underscores that the corresponding state and federal constitutional provisions reach the same result, but also demonstrates that, traditionally, the Court "follow[ed] a policy of uniformity with the federal courts" when considering search-and-[*9]seizure arguments (Judith S. Kaye, Dual Constitutionalism in Practice and Principle, 61 St. John's L Rev 399, 417 [1987]; see e.g. No other contraband was found on Mr. Gordon's person or in the interior of the residence. The dissent faults our prior decisions in Hansen, Dumper, Sciacca, and Rainey for failing to conduct an extensive analysis of whether state constitutional protections deviate from federal constitutional protections in this context, while simultaneously acknowledging that our state caselaw delineating that particular analysis postdates those decisions. . In another case of illegal search and seizure, three Chicago police officers and one Glenview police officer who were involved in an illegal search and seizure of a man's car were deemed guilty of perjury, obstructing justice, and official misconduct earlier this year when it was found that they had illegally searched the defendant's . Search warrants are issued by judges at the request of law enforcement. This Court upheld the validity of the search and seizure under Terry. 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]).

Camilla Shand Kydd Lord Lucan, Michelle Meneses Wife Of Vergel, National Piano Guild High School Diploma, Articles R