Judges Rivera, Stein and Fahey concur. From the search of the Nissan, the police retrieved quantities of heroin, cocaine, and assorted drug paraphernalia. "This rule applies equally to all containers" (id. 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). People v Gordon Court of Appeals N.Y. July 9, 2019) Officers with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) arrested Williams for speeding, reckless driving, and unauthorized use of a rental car. 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. No other contraband was found on Mr. Gordon's person or in the interior of the residence. Citing Rainey, we [*3]reiterated that under our precedent, the "scope of the search has been carefully limited" and "probable cause must be shown in each instance" (id.). 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]). Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. July 31, 2019. . 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. 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 126-127). Five Scorpion officers are charged with murdering Tyre Nichols during an arrest. 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, . This Court upheld the validity of the search and seizure under Terry. Applying the doctrine of severability, we upheld the search of Hansen's residence but directed that the evidence seized from the van should be suppressed. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. 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. In this area of constitutional law, we have set forth principles that would be unduly weakened by the People's preferred rule (see People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 407 [1985]). R. v. Valentine, involved a traffic stop on Highway 401, where drugs were later found. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. at 299). United States v Pennington, 287 F3d 739, 745 [8th Cir 2002]; United States v Percival, 756 F2d 600, 611-613 [7th Cir 1985]). 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). Defendant did not support that argument with any state constitutional analysis. Probable cause must be shown in each instance" (id. 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. The application contained no mention of the existence of the vehicles ultimately searched, much less evidence connecting them to any criminality. . 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. 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. 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). InAugust 2013,Special Agent Michael Snedekerprovided an affidavit to an Eastern District of NYmagistrate judge to request a search of Kayla. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. at 299). Nonetheless, we decline, as a matter of state constitutional law, to adopt either version of the federal rule advocated by the People. InJune 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan delivered a blistering account ofthoseFBI raidsWey's attorney. In the Nissan, which defendant was borrowing from the owner, the police found heroin, marijuana, cocaine, money, and drug paraphernalia. Collins v. Virginia 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. 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. Siegal's argument was that such a search was a violation of 4th Amendment rights and submitted a motion toUS District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein that any evidence gathered in the raid shouldbe suppressed. 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]). at 21). at 821). Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Your 4th Amendment Rights The 4 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure . 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. 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. Rather than forthright basing this extreme position on the Fourth Amendment and application of Supreme Court precedenta decision that would theoretically be more readily reviewed by the Supreme Court (perhaps because this Court has now become an outlier and created a "split" in the interpretation of Ross)the majority relies, in some unspecified way, on our case law that not only is inapposite, but also predates Ross and was decided without the benefit of subsequent constitutional law on the import of containers located in the areas designated to be searched in warrants. Feuerstein askedMagistrate Judge Anne Y. Supreme Court granted the motion to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed. March 20, 2019. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. No. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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. 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). We first held that the underlying warrant for the residence lacked sufficient factual allegations to authorize a search of the residence (Dumper, 28 NY2d at 298). . 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. Nevertheless, in our view, that does not render our repeated citations to the State Constitution meaningless. 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. 2651 PDF It is not clear if the search, which was done with the cooperation of Mr. Bidens legal team, uncovered any additional classified files. 2019) Jun 10, 2020 133 Harv.