recent illegal search and seizure cases 2019 recent illegal search and seizure cases 2019

District of Kansas : Civil Rights, Search and Seizure : Jury Trial : House v. upon the magistrate determining probable cause"]). Prosecutors did not provide a date for when Drago should expect that indictment. For reasons explained above, Mr. Gordon is correct that adopting the People's position would amount to a substantial deviation from the rule to which we have adhered under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 12 of the State Constitution, requiring warrants to provide particularization between vehicles and real property, even when a vehicle is located on real property.[FN3]. Defendant sought to suppress all evidence seized from the Nissan and Chevrolet. 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. 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. The warrant application did not refer to any vehicles. Prosecutors appealed, hoping to. The search, like at least two others conducted at locations associated with President Biden, was undertaken with the cooperation of the president and his legal team. A state appeals court tossed out Price's conviction for drug possession in May, saying it was based on evidence obtained during an illegal search of his luggage. Finally, the dissent argues that we are bound to decide this case purely as an application of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v Ross because Mr. Gordon has not preserved a claim under the State Constitution. This Court has never held that a mere reference or citation to both a state constitutional provision and its federal counterpart is enough to preserve an argument that the parallel state provision provides for heightened protection. A majority of this Court, however, answers that question in the negative. We are not persuaded by the People's attempts to distinguish our prior cases. But those are all well settled reasons why there is a reduced expectation of privacy in automobilesnot reasons to invent greater protections for them (see e.g. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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. 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. Ross itself does not govern the situation here, and we are skeptical of the wisdom of the federal appellate cases extending it [FN1]. 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 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]). Judges Rivera, Stein and Fahey concur. 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. 238453. Case Summary: 08-cv-04373 This case involves claims by numerous citizens that their constitutional rights were violated by the United States government through unauthorized surveillance of their telephone and internet activity by the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government actors under the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" or TSP. Residents say the street crime unit was an intimidating and sometimes violent presence in the city. 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 . The People rely heavily on United States v Ross (456 US 798 [1982]) and several decisions of Federal Courts of Appeals that have determined, under the U.S. Constitution, that a warrant to search an "entire premises" may, under certain circumstances, impliedly authorize a search of automobiles found on the property (e.g. Posted on 26 Feb in greenshield pharmacy intervention codes. Posey was arrested after the Officer responded to a look out for Robbery suspects. No such connections were made here. 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. 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. There is no "constitutional distinction between 'worthy' and 'unworthy' containers" (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. 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. 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. By Steve Eder,Matthew Rosenberg,Joseph Goldstein,Mike Baker,Kassie Bracken and Mark Walker. Individuals do not cede legitimate expectations of privacy when they park a vehicle at the house of a friend, acquaintance or stranger. . . 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"]). . at 127). . 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. 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. Siegal. 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. a premises) does not impliedly encompass the others. at 126-127). Five Memphis police officers pleaded not guilty to murder charges in the beating death of Mr. Nichols. A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]). 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. 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. 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. This Court upheld the validity of the search and seizure under Terry. 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"]). are best promoted by applying State constitutional standards" (Johnson, 66 NY2d at 407) and when the "constitutional protections we have enjoyed in this State . From the search of the Nissan, the police retrieved quantities of heroin, cocaine, and assorted drug paraphernalia. Instead of attempting to ameliorate the concern by, as other courts have done, fashioning an appropriate rule (see n 1, supra), the majority categorically prohibits the search of vehicles pursuant to a premises warrant unless the vehicles are identified in the warrant application and supported by a separate showing of probable cause, making vehicles concealed on premises effectively search proof. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. Administrative Oversight and Accountability, Director of Workplace Relations Contacts by Circuit, Fact Sheet for Workplace Protections in the Federal Judiciary, Chronological History of Authorized Judgeships - Courts of Appeals, Chronological History of Authorized Judgeships - District Courts. 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). 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. Rainey did not address whether the need to provide particular probable cause for separate residences extended to providing particularized probable cause for vehicles found at or associated with a residence. Nonetheless, as part of the search of the "entire premises," police officers searched two vehicles found onsite: a Nissan Maxima and a Chevrolet sedan. The safety of students and staff and the need to . Supreme Court granted the motion to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed. During execution of the warrant, the police searched two vehicles: (1) a Nissan Maxima parked on the driveway of the property and (2) an unregistered 2000 Chevrolet sedan parked in the backyard. Shield's allowed government prosecutors to submit their objections but they took a pass saying that they intended toreturn all of the records seized in the raid as well as destroy the electronic images it created as a result of the seized information. Steve Eder,Matthew Rosenberg,Joseph Goldstein,Mike Baker,Kassie Bracken. . The Appellate Division affirmed, concurring in Supreme Court's conclusion that "the search warrant did not particularize that a search of the vehicles was permitted" and "probable cause to search those vehicles had not been established in the application for the search warrant" (169 AD3d 714, 714-715 [2d Dept 2019] [internal citations omitted]). "This rule applies equally to all containers" (id. For the controlled and undercover buys, defendant agreed in advance to meet at his residence for the purpose of selling heroin. People v Gordon The majority disagrees with every federal court and state high court, and posits that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the search of the vehicles here (majority op at 20). The touchstone of the constitutional protection for privacy, under Article 1, Section 12 of the State Constitution, is whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (see Scott, 79 NY2d at 488). 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]). 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. at 402 [the "ultimate mandate of reasonableness" "depend(s) upon the facts and circumstances"]). at 128). Feuerstein askedMagistrate Judge Anne Y. 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. Yet that statement represents our Court's understanding of the meaning of our prior decisions in Hansen and Dumper, one that, as we noted in Sciacca, accords with the legislature's prescription of "what and who" are subject to search pursuant to a New York warrant (see CPL 690.15 [1] ["A search warrant must direct a search of one or more of the following: (a) A designated or described place or premises; (b) A designated or described vehicle . Nevertheless, this concern exists. The Fourth Amendment provides important constitutional limits on abusive policing. Siegal represents John Drago who owned and operated a check cashing business, Kayla Companies. 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]). 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. G.R. The State appealed that decision. The warrant authorized the police to search for, among other things, heroin, money as the proceeds of an illicit drug business, cell phones, computers, and drug paraphernalia. The items that could be seized in the raid were listed as; "Records, documents and materials that memorialize or reflect financial transactions between Kayla and its source(s) of cash, including, but not limited to contracts, receipts, invoices, letter, bank statements, notes, ledgers, cash receipt journals or records cash shipment records, and/or cash delivery records". at 821). 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." March 20, 2019. Download scientific diagram | the data for elephant Poaching, Ivory Prices in china, Vietnam and Japan, and economic Performance and Seizures in china, 2005-2019: (a) Proportion of Illegally . The Nissan, which was registered to Mr. Gordon's cousin, was parked in the driveway of the residence. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. 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. In a 2017 case involving Wall Street financier Benjamin Wey, defense attorney David Siegal, said that FBI agents had gone too far in their search for random items during a raid on Wey's office and residence. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. 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. 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]). Those cases rested on both the New York and U.S. Constitutions as well as the Criminal Procedure Law to require a greater degree of protection for searches of vehicles than is now required under the federal circuit court law cited by the People. For example, "a warrant that authorizes an officer to search a home for illegal weapons also provides authority to open closets, chests, drawers, and containers in which the weapon might be found" (Ross, 456 US at 821). 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). Williams, 2019 U.S. App. The officers stopped the man, subjected him to a patdown search, and then inspected the interior of the vehicle for other weapons. According to the Government, it willnow more than one year after seeking the indictment, more than six years after theexecution of the search, and almost eight years from beginning its investigation into Johnsbusiness ask the grand jury to issue yet another charge against John, by way of anostensible superseding indictment, and to expand on the description and scope of the conductcharged in the current indictment. 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. provided an affidavit to an Eastern District of NYmagistrate judge to request a search of Kayla. InJune 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan delivered a blistering account ofthoseFBI raidsWey's attorney. at 299). 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. It is not clear if the search, which was done with the cooperation of Mr. Bidens legal team, uncovered any additional classified files. The majority's "clarif[ication]" of the cases (which comes nearly a half century later), transforming them into state constitutional decisions, is nothing short of judicial legerdemain (majority op at 19). 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). Defendant's [*7]expectation of privacy in the vehicles is not disputed. 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. 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]). Posted by Brett McGarry. 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. The Justices Search help & Tips - Supreme Court of the United States more specific results. The Supreme Court has held that a passing parallel reference to the State and Federal Constitutions is insufficient to satisfy the plain-statement rulei.e., that a case was decided on a state-law ground (see e.g. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, and we now do so as well. In People v Rainey, police officers tendered factual allegations sufficient to establish that the defendant's residence likely contained forged or illicit goods. Attached to the third party's apartment was a shed. Indeed, a parallel citation indicates a belief by the litigant (or the court) that the state and federal provisions at issue are coextensive. During each alleged sale, a driver pulled up in front of the premises in their vehicle, and defendant exited his residence, approached the vehicle, and then returned to the house. (c) A designated or described person"]). 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 . Those expectations must at times give way to "compelling police interest[s]" (People v Class, 63 NY2d 491, 495 [1984], revd and remanded by New York v Class, 475 US 106 [1986], reaffirmed on state constitutional grounds by People v Class, 67 NY2d 431 [1986]).