The Nissan, which was registered to Mr. Gordon's cousin, was parked in the driveway of the residence. In the appropriate case, Dumper may be relevant in assessing how we would decide that issue, but it is not relevant here. Every federal circuit court of appeals and every state high court that has addressed the questionuntil todayconcluded that vehicles are no different than other containers that might be found on premises, and, thus, heeding the directive from the United States Supreme Court that there is no constitutional distinction between types of containers, held that vehicles parked on the premises may reasonably be searched if they may contain the object of the search. at 20-21). The officers stopped the man, subjected him to a patdown search, and then inspected the interior of the vehicle for other weapons. 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). 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). Roadways to the Bench: Who Me? 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. Where a search warrant authorizes the search of premises, a separate showing of probable cause is not required to search containers found on the designated premises, if the object of the search could be found therein. This case considers, for the first time in Georgia, the effect of the State's delay in obtaining search warrants for data contained in electronic devices when those devices were originally seized in a warrantless, but lawful, manner by police. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, and we now do so as well. the requirements of judicial supervision in the warrant process" (P.J. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. During the search of the passenger compartment, the police discovered an open pouch containing marijuana and seized it. Posted on 26 Feb in greenshield pharmacy intervention codes. But the location of that search was an im-pounded vehiclenot a home"'a constitutional differ-ence'" that the opinion repeatedly stressed. at 822 [emphasis added]). Moreover, to the extent to which vehicle searches are authorized in a warrant, the vehicles must be "designated or described" (CPL 690.15 [1] [b]). 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. We explained that: "a warrant must describe the premises to be searched, and this warrant did not include the automobile, which was not on the premises when the police came with the warrant but which was driven into the driveway while police were there, [and therefore] it did not justify [a] search of the car" (id). 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. 690) and decisional law"]). As in Hansen, "no observation was reported as to any movement of persons between the house and the [vehicles]" (Hansen, 38 NY2d at 20) that would substantiate a belief that the vehicles searched were utilized in the alleged criminal activity. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the factual allegations did not support a search of the vehicles located outside the residence. Five Scorpion officers are charged with murdering Tyre Nichols during an arrest. The plain import of this language is that a warrant to search a discrete structure ("a building") does not authorize a search of any container located on the grounds upon which the structure is situated ("vehicles at the premises"), because a search of the latter would exceed the scope of the warrant. Yesterday, Judge Feuerstein issued anorderconfirming that information gained from the search would not be admissible. Video, Inc., 68 NY2d 296, 305-306 [1986]). 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 . . In Ross, the United States Supreme Court held that, where police officers have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within a vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of it and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search (id. at 127) is dictum and, in any event, lacks context as to its intended application. 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. 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). 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. 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. and the entire premises" from which Mr. Gordon was seen emerging. 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, . BOGGS, Justice. Accordingly, those courts have held that, under the Fourth Amendment, "[a] search warrant authorizing a search of a certain premises generally includes any vehicles located within its curtilage if the objects of the search might be located therein" (United States v Gottschalk, 915 F2d 1459, 1461 [10th Cir 1990]; accord United States v Armstrong, 546 Fed Appx 936, 939 [11th Cir 2013]; United States v Johnson, 640 F3d 843, 845 [8th Cir 2011]; United States v Patterson, 278 F3d 315, 318 [4th Cir 2002]; Evans, 92 F3d at 543; United States v Duque, 62 F3d 1146, 1151 [9th Cir 1995]; United States v Singer, 970 F2d 1414, 1417-1418 [5th Cir 1992]; United States v Reivich, 793 F2d 957, 963 [8th Cir 1986]; Percival, 756 F2d at 612; United States v Asselin, 775 F2d 445, 447 [1st Cir 1985]).[FN4]. 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. New York v Class, 475 US 106, 109 [1986] [New York Court of Appeals opinion failed to satisfy the plain-statement rule where it mentioned the New York Constitution "but once, and then only in direct conjunction with the United States Constitution," and made "use of both federal and New York cases in its analysis, generally citing both for the same proposition"]; New York v P.J. 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 actions of the investigators in breaking and entering into the building were unreasonable, as there was "no evidence whatever which would indicate that the garage was a premises where the controlled activity was taking place. LEONARDO YANSON, Accused-Appellant. In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 11, 2019 S18A1090. 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". Wilson, J. The warrant here authorized the search of a particular van and nothing else. 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. Judges Rivera, Stein and Fahey concur. I write and consult on federal criminal law and criminal justice. The cases dealt with investigative detention, the insanity defense, cross-border shootings . 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. 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. While this Court has not yet had the opportunity to answer it, the question is certainly not a novel one for courts. . People v Hansen (38 NY2d 17 [1975]), also cited by the Court in Sciacca, is likewise factually inapposite and not controlling. 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. 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). Nevertheless, in our view, that does not render our repeated citations to the State Constitution meaningless. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. 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"]). 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. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Applying Ross, I would likewise hold that, where a warrant authorizes a search of the entire premises for items that could be found in a vehicle on those premises, it is reasonable to search a vehicle parked thereon, just as it would be for other containers found on the premises. Indeed, a parallel citation indicates a belief by the litigant (or the court) that the state and federal provisions at issue are coextensive. InJune 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan delivered a blistering account ofthoseFBI raidsWey's attorney. . In fact, Cady expressly con-trasted its treatment of a vehicle already under police con-trol with a search of a car "parked adjacent to the dwelling 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." Additionally, in Dumper, we invalidated the search warrant based on the absence of probable cause of criminal activity to sustain any search. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Georgia opinions delivered to your inbox! 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]). You can explore additional available newsletters here. The garage was completely distinct, indeed incidental, to any illegal activity" (id. 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. 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. People v Dumper (28 NY2d 296 [1971]), cited in Sciacca, is also unavailing. at 37). 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. Thus, the majority upsetsto say the leastthis Court's well settled preservation rules holding that defendant preserved an argument that the State Constitution provides heightened protection simply by citing several New York cases in which the sole reference to the New York Constitution is in a parallel cite with the Federal Constitution. No. As a repeat offender, a Passaic County judge sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 25 years, and at. 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"]). 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 . The deponent set forth his experience, stating that he had been involved in more than 1,000 drug-related arrests, that he was familiar with the modus operandi of heroin dealers, that the activity taking place at the premises was consistent with narcotics transactions, and, based on the above, there was probable cause to believe drugs would be "found at the above described premises." 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 warrant application did not refer to any vehicles. at 21 [emphasis added]). Prosecutors appealed, hoping to. The activity described in the affidavit, without more, was innocuous and as consistent with innocence as with criminal activity" (id.). California v. Lee, California Court of Appeals 2019. Video, Inc., 68 NY2d 296, 304 [1986], quoting People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 406-407 [1985]). 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. . That Court did, however, leave no doubtat least in the view of any other court to consider the issuethat the Fourth Amendment permits the search of containers found on the premises, such as the vehicles here. You're all set! 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]). 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]. 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 Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones's wife. . As discussed, Sciacca, Hansen, Dumper, and Rainey all contain parallel references to New York Constitution art I, 12 and the Fourth Amendment, without distinguishing between the guarantees afforded by the two provisions. We are not persuaded by the People's attempts to distinguish our prior cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division 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. 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. In Ross, the Supreme Court held that when police officers have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the trunk of a vehiclebased on an informant's tip that narcotics were being kept in the trunk of the carthe police may open a paper bag found inside the trunk (Ross, 456 US at 801). The warrant was issued on August 28, 2015 and executed one week later. Warrants "interpose the detached and independent judgment of a neutral Magistrate between the interested viewpoint [*4]of those engaged in ferreting out crime and potential encroachments on the sanctity and privacy of the individual" (People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 558 [1975]). A Judge of this Court granted the People's motion for leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]), and we now affirm. Siegal represents John Drago who owned and operated a check cashing business, Kayla Companies. Based on the surveillance and undercover purchases, the detectives applied for and obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of "the person of Tyrone Gordon . The court issued a search warrant authorizing a search of Defendant's "person" and the "entire premises." 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. . 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. 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. Based on our prior precedent and interpretations thereof by the lower courts, Mr. Gordon argued that the police officers lacked the particularized probable cause necessary to search the vehicles. With respect to its treatment of the New York State Constitution, the majority, without clarifying whether it interprets the relevant state constitutional provision as diverging from its federal counterpart, reaches two very problematic conclusions: first, that defendant preserved an argument that our State Constitution provides more protection than the Fourth Amendment, by simply citing New York cases, even though those cases contain no discussion of the State Constitution; and second, that those earlier decisions by this Court somehow justify, with no further analysis, a constitutional rule applicable to this case. Supreme Court granted the motion to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed. Recent Case : 926 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 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. People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 165 [1981] ["(S)ection 12 of article I of the New York State Constitution conforms with the Fourth Amendment regarding the proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, and this identity of language supports a policy of uniformity in both State and Federal courts"]).