a premises) does not impliedly encompass the others. 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. Because the search warrant in this case contained no references to the vehicles and the record supports the finding of Supreme Court that the search warrant materials failed to provide probable cause to search the vehicles, the evidence seized therefrom was properly suppressed. 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. are best promoted by applying State constitutional standards" (Johnson, 66 NY2d at 407) and when the "constitutional protections we have enjoyed in this State . Nonetheless, we decline, as a matter of state constitutional law, to adopt either version of the federal rule advocated by the People. 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. Defense Attorney David Fischer successfully convinced Judge Kara K. Ueda in his motion to suppress the search and seizure because the stop itself for "illegal" tinted windows" was not legal and the subsequent search was not lawful because of the illegal stop and because the "pat search" was not lawful. 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." FAQs: Filing a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint Against a Federal Judge, Archives of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Fees, Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination, National Court Interpreter Database (NCID) Gateway, Transfer of Excess Judiciary Personal Property, Electronic Public Access Public User Group, Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary, Asset Management Planning Process Handbook, Judiciary Conferences That Cost More Than $100,000, Long Range Plan for Information Technology, Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment, Laws and Procedures Governing the Work of the Rules Committees, How to Suggest a Change to Federal Court Rules and Forms, How to Submit Input on a Pending Proposal, Open Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committee, Permitted Changes to Official Bankruptcy Forms, Congressional and Supreme Court Rules Packages, Preliminary Drafts of Proposed Rule Amendments, Confidentiality Regulations for Pretrial Services Information, United States of America v. City of Seattle, Rhodes, et al v. Lauderdale County, et al, Civil Rights, Criminal Law Related Civil Cases, Diversity, Search and Seizure, Civil Rights, Criminal Law Related Civil Cases, Search and Seizure, Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, Status Conference. . and the entire premises" from which Mr. Gordon was seen emerging. Indeed, the observed pattern, as described in the affidavit, was for Mr. Gordon to proceed from the residence to the street and back, without detouring to any vehicles parked at the residence. 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. Thus, to be valid, a search warrant must be "specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer" (People v Brown, 96 NY2d 80, 84 [2001], quoting People v Darling, 95 NY2d 530, 537 [2000]). Supreme Court's probable cause analysis is consonant with our prior cases and the record supports its finding, affirmed by the Appellate Division, that the warrant application failed to establish probable cause to search the two vehicles. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. 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]). This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]). One man, mature FBI agent working on a case in dark office. 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. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. It is not clear if the search, which was done with the cooperation of Mr. Bidens legal team, uncovered any additional classified files. 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. 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. Nonetheless, as part of the search of the "entire premises," police officers searched two vehicles found onsite: a Nissan Maxima and a Chevrolet sedan. By Glenn Thrush,Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman. 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). As explained below, the constitutional principles we have developed in this area, including judicial monitoring of the search warrant process and the importance of probable cause and particularity, strongly weigh against the People's proposed rule. A search and seizure is not valid unless it is based on either a warrant that was issued based on probable cause that a crime had been committed or upon an exception. As we stated in Hansen, the mere presence of a vehicle seen at the sight of premises wherein the police suspect criminal activity to be occurring does not by itself provide probable cause to search the vehicle (see id. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Georgia opinions delivered to your inbox! Moreover, automobiles, unlike other containers, are typically titled and registered, and are also more often in public view, providing police officers with the means of establishing connections between the vehicle and the target of the search. Ross itself does not govern the situation here, and we are skeptical of the wisdom of the federal appellate cases extending it [FN1]. The Justice Department cited the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege in demanding testimony from a lawyer representing former President Donald Trump in his documents case. Biden then recalled the outspoken Georgia Republican's recent allegations regarding fentanyl deaths. at 21 [emphasis added]). Given that the cases cited by defendant did not engage in this weighty undertaking, it would be inappropriate to interpret those cases as creating a separately enforceable state constitutional standard. The parties dispute the proper standards for evaluating the sufficiency of the warrant application and whether the search of the vehicles conformed to the warrant's directives. 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]). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. This applies when a person has what is known as a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or thing to be searched. About; License; Lawyer Directory; Projects. at 20-21). You can explore additional available newsletters here. The Supreme Court did not address whether a search of an automobile could be upheld when the information supporting a warrant application is determined by a magistrate to justify the search of a premises but makes no mention of vehicles located on the property. Judge Feinman dissents in an opinion in which Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia concur. 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. at 128). 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]). 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]). 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. In the appropriate case, Dumper may be relevant in assessing how we would decide that issue, but it is not relevant here. 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 upheld the validity of the search and seizure under Terry. 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].