The safety of students and staff and the need to . Prosecutors appealed, hoping to. 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"]). Read more. 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. Here, no vehicle was designated or described in the warrant, and the People have not argued that the police had probable cause to engage in a search of anything outside of what was designated or described in the warrant. Nor do we believe that the warrant for Mr. Gordon's "person" or "premises"in the context of the factual allegations averred by the detectivesauthorized a search of the vehicles. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, and we now do so as well. THE STATE v. ROSENBAUM et al. Ross itself does not govern the situation here, and we are skeptical of the wisdom of the federal appellate cases extending it [FN1]. Instead, defendant supported his suppression argument with citations to this Court's decisions in Rainey, Dumper, Hansen, and Sciacca. 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 . Recent Case : 926 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. a premises) does not impliedly encompass the others. [citing to federal and state case law]). By Alan Feuer,Maggie Haberman and Ben Protess. the Legislature uses different terms in various parts of a statute, courts may reasonably infer that different concepts are intended"]). 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. At the police station, Detectives Fichter and Latorre conducted an inventory search of Williams' car in accordance with the NYPD's . . The court issued a search warrant authorizing a search of Defendant's "person" and the "entire premises." It's a fact that check cashing businesses handle a lot of cash and with a lot of cash comes a lot of reporting. March 20, 2019. Failing to do so, we accomplish the reverse. Video, Inc., 475 US 868, 872 n 4 [1986] [same, where the opinion "cited the New York Constitution only once, near the beginning of its opinion, and in the same parenthetical also cited the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution"]). 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. 690) and decisional law"]). at 299). Posted by Brett McGarry. 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. But the location of that search was an im-pounded vehiclenot a home"'a constitutional differ-ence'" that the opinion repeatedly stressed. 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]). I dissent. 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. 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. Supreme Court granted the motion to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed. 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. 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." Feuerstein askedMagistrate Judge Anne Y. at 21 [emphasis added]). 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). Two subsequent cases did. It's difficult to have a case without evidence. 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). 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. California v. Lee, California Court of Appeals 2019. People v Hansen (38 NY2d 17 [1975]), also cited by the Court in Sciacca, is likewise factually inapposite and not controlling. 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. 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'. People v Garvin, 30 NY3d 174, 185 n 8 [2017] ["Any issues regarding whether New York Constitution, article I, 12 provides greater protection . 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]). The significance of that conclusion relates back to the basic standards for issuing and reviewing search warrants (see Nieves, 36 NY2d at 402 [ "In reviewing the validity of a search warrant . The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the search warrant contained no references to the vehicles to be searched, the record supported the finding that there was no probable cause to search the vehicles. LEXIS 20262 (2d Cir. In light of the Hansen Court's conclusion that there was no probable cause to search the van, the Court certainly did not confront whether the warrant to search the residence covered a search of the van "wherever located." . Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. "This rule applies equally to all containers" (id. To further that role, our constitution assigns to the magistrate the tasks of evaluating whether probable cause exists to initiate a search and defining the subjects to be searched (see Nieves, 36 NY2d at 402 ["In reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine whether it was supported by probable cause or whether it contained a sufficiently particular description of its target, the critical facts and circumstances for the reviewing court are those which were made known to the issuing Magistrate at the time the warrant application was determined"]). This means that law enforcement agents need probable cause, and a warrant in most cases, to search your person or belongings. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. 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. Federal courts, applying Ross, have found that vehicles located in the area to be searched are a type of containerworthy of no more protection than other types of containers (see e.g. 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"]). Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Georgia opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. 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]). Shield to look into the matter. Indeed, a parallel citation indicates a belief by the litigant (or the court) that the state and federal provisions at issue are coextensive. 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). Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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). This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. United States v Pennington, 287 F3d 739, 745 [8th Cir 2002]; United States v Percival, 756 F2d 600, 611-613 [7th Cir 1985]). The People and dissent contend that we should extend the reasoning of Ross to hold, as some Federal Courts of Appeals have, that vehicles located outside a residence are no different from any other "closets, chests, drawers, [or] containers" located within (id. . 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. at 20). Contrary to the assertion of the dissent, this issue has been preserved and developed by both parties throughout the course of this litigation, which is perhaps why the People themselves have not argued that Mr. Gordon's contentions are unpreserved. . Your 4th Amendment Rights The 4 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure . 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. 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. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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 the Chevrolet, which defendant owned, the police recovered a loaded handgun from the engine block. 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. Radel pleaded guilty in August 2019 to two counts of illegal gun possession. Additionally no observation was reported as to any movement of persons between the house and the van. Five Scorpion officers are charged with murdering Tyre Nichols during an arrest. 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. 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. at 127) is dictum and, in any event, lacks context as to its intended application. 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 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. . 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. 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. 238453. 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). 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]). 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. 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. 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. 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.). However, the constitutional mandate of particularity of the place to be searched may not be circumvented by implication as the People urge.