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. 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. 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." InJune 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan delivered a blistering account ofthoseFBI raidsWey's attorney. 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). If that proof is insufficient to convince the magistrate to authorize a search of the vehicles, allowing a search because the vehicles are located on a premises would constitute an unconstitutional bootstrapping.[FN2]. Get free summaries of new New York Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! at 299). In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 (2005), this Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable seizures. The application contained no mention of the existence of the vehicles ultimately searched, much less evidence connecting them to any criminality. 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. Like Sciacca and Dumper, Hansen focused on the basic tenets of probable cause of criminal activity in the warrants at issue and did not address the question here. Steve Eder,Matthew Rosenberg,Joseph Goldstein,Mike Baker,Kassie Bracken. 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. These protections take shape in two ways . 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). South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 367-368 [1976]; People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]). Collins v. Virginia 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. Biden then recalled the outspoken Georgia Republican's recent allegations regarding fentanyl deaths. The debate below focused on the merits of adopting the People's interpretation of the federal standard in light of our prior precedent. 2019) Jun 10, 2020 133 Harv. 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. Roadways to the Bench: Who Me? . In one of first impression for the Georgia Supreme Court, the issue this case presented centered on the effect of the States 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. 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]). at 126-127). Recent Case : 926 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. However, Siegal struck back with a letter to Judge Feuerstein regarding the prosecutor's intentions to pursue criminal action against Drago: In its letter, the Government has asserted that, notwithstanding the suppression of theevidence, it intends to proceed with prosecuting John [Drago]. Rainey established that probable cause to search a suspect's residence did not encompass the authority to search a separate residence, even if both were located on the same premises. As a result, Supreme Court ordered the suppression of physical evidence seized from the two vehicles. One of the additional charges filed against Drago was that he was cashing checks totaling more than $10,000 without filing a Currency Transaction Reports (CTR). 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. 211214. Moreover, every other state high court that has addressed this issue has, like the federal courts, held that a warrant authorizing a search of the entire premises permits the police to search vehicles located thereon [FN5]. 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"]). Cases involving violations of basic rights of citizensin order to achieve a criminal enforcement action is simply wrong. 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. 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. The Chevrolet, parked in the backyard behind two fences, was unregistered. 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. InAugust 2013,Special Agent Michael Snedekerprovided an affidavit to an Eastern District of NYmagistrate judge to request a search of Kayla. Posey was arrested after the Officer responded to a look out for Robbery suspects. A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]). 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]. "[I]t is highly awkward, if not impossible, to use a case as the basis for an argument about the meaning of the state constitution if it is unclear from the case itself whether the case is even about the state constitution" (James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 Mich L Rev 761, 783 [1992]). Supreme Court explained that in New York, a search warrant must list "each specific area of the building, area or vehicle to be searched" and "[p]robable cause must be shown in each instance." D E C I S I O N. LEONEN, J.: For a "stop and frisk" search to be valid, the totality of suspicious circumstances, as personally observed by the arresting officer, must lead to a genuine reason to suspect that a person is committing an illicit act. The warrant here authorized the search of a particular van and nothing else. 690) and decisional law"]). Residents say the street crime unit was an intimidating and sometimes violent presence in the city. . 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." Judge Feinman dissents in an opinion in which Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia concur. 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.). When the People invoked Ross in their response papers, defendant ignored the argument.[FN8]. 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. A Judge of this Court granted the People's motion for leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]), and we now affirm. From the search of the Nissan, the police retrieved quantities of heroin, cocaine, and assorted drug paraphernalia. The Fourth Amendment provides important constitutional limits on abusive policing. We delineated an "independent body" of search-and-seizure law under the State Constitution, and we have explained that, because the state and federal provisions contain similar language and share a common history, any divergence in meaning must derive from a "noninterpretive analysis" focused on "circumstances peculiar to New York" (People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434, 438-439 [1991]). 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. A team from the Justice Department conducted a 13-hour search of the presidents Wilmington residence on Friday. Las autoridades investigan el hallazgo de documentos clasificados en un despacho que ocup Biden tras dejar la vicepresidencia. "Listen to this mother, who lost two children to fentanyl poisoning, tell the truth about . The authorities of the two countries have worked together to round up statues, vases and bronzes, some of which had appeared in American museums. But the location of that search was an im-pounded vehiclenot a home"'a constitutional differ-ence'" that the opinion repeatedly stressed. 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. Indeed, we observed in Dumper thatpursuant to both constitutional and statutory directivesa "warrant must describe the premises to be searched" and "this warrant did not include the automobile" (Dumper, 28 NY2d at 299). Nevertheless, in our view, that does not render our repeated citations to the State Constitution meaningless. The warrant application did not refer to any vehicles. 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. 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. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision 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. 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". . the requirements of judicial supervision in the warrant process" (P.J. 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. 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]. at 128). March 20, 2019. Posted on 26 Feb in greenshield pharmacy intervention codes. The Justices Search help & Tips - Supreme Court of the United States more specific results. 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 127). So important is the role of the neutral and detached magistrate that we have in the past parted ways from federal constitutional jurisprudence when we believed that an emerging rule of federal constitutional law "dilute[s] . In this case, by comparison, the warrant application contained no mention whatsoever of the existence of the vehicles ultimately searched, much less evidence connecting them to any criminality. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Georgia opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. Authority to search a vehicle does not include authority to enter private premises to effect a search of a vehicle within those premises. We are not persuaded by the People's attempts to distinguish our prior cases. The factual allegations, Mr. Gordon contended, supported at most a search of Mr. Gordon's person and his residence and not the vehicles located outside the residence. 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 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. In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 11, 2019 S18A1090. 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 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. Those limits have not been honored in this case. By Alan Feuer,Maggie Haberman and Ben Protess. However, we held that the police lacked sufficient evidence to search a vehicle that had been seen coming and going from the residence. 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. 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. Probable cause must be shown in each instance" (id. 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." ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION February 27, 2019 11:07 am | Comments Off The Court of Appeals in Posey v. US, decided on February 21, 2019, reversed the trial's court denial of the suppression motion and thus vacated the conviction. 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. You may opt-out by. Radel pleaded guilty in August 2019 to two counts of illegal gun possession. The only reference to the New York Constitution in those decisions comes in the form of a parallel reference or citation to New York Constitution article I, 12 and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (see Sciacca, 45 NY2d at 127; Hansen, 38 NY2d at 22; Dumper, 28 NY2d at 299; People v Rainey, 14 NY2d 35, 38 [1964]).