Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Georgia opinions delivered to your inbox! These protections take shape in two ways . 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]). Steve Eder,Matthew Rosenberg,Joseph Goldstein,Mike Baker,Kassie Bracken. Nevertheless, in our view, that does not render our repeated citations to the State Constitution meaningless. 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. Thus, Mr. Gordon preserved the argument that, notwithstanding United States v Ross and related federal circuit court decisions, our state law remains the same as we articulated in our decisions in Hansen, Dumper, Sciacca, and Rainey. 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. 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. 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). 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. Siegal. The trial court suppressed the evidence derived from the devices, relying on persuasive authority from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to find that the delay between the seizure of the devices and the issuance of the search warrants for the data contained in them was unreasonable and thus violated appellees rights under the Fourth Amendment and Georgia law. As a repeat offender, a Passaic County judge sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 25 years, and at. 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. 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. 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." 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]). InAugust 2013,Special Agent Michael Snedekerprovided an affidavit to an Eastern District of NYmagistrate judge to request a search of Kayla. "[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]). . Nonetheless, we decline, as a matter of state constitutional law, to adopt either version of the federal rule advocated by the People. 690) and decisional law"]). Because the supporting affidavits did not describe the vehicles to be searched at all, never mind with any particular allegations connecting them to criminal activity, the record supports the affirmed finding that there was no probable cause to search the vehicles. The warrant application did not refer to any vehicles. THE STATE v. ROSENBAUM et al. Video, Inc., 68 NY2d 296, 305-306 [1986]). 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). A search and seizure is not valid unless it is based on either a warrant that was issued based on probable cause that a crime had been committed or upon an exception. Both conclusions fundamentally alter our jurisprudence. 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. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. 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. . provided an affidavit to an Eastern District of NYmagistrate judge to request a search of Kayla. 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. 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). Two subsequent cases did. 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. 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). A Bankruptcy or Magistrate Judge? 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. Prosecutors appealed, hoping to. 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. Biden then recalled the outspoken Georgia Republican's recent allegations regarding fentanyl deaths. We agreed, and held that "[f]or purposes of satisfying the State and Federal constitutional requirements, the searching of two or of more residential apartments in the same building is no different from searching two or more separate residential houses. . 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. 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 . 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. 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. . In the appropriate case, Dumper may be relevant in assessing how we would decide that issue, but it is not relevant here. Video, 68 NY2d at 305; see also People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309 [1983]; People v Scott, 79 NY2d 474, 487 [1992]; People v Keta, 79 NY2d 474, 498 [1992] [declining to incorporate a federal rule permitting warrantless searches of business establishments in light of the paramount importance of "advance judicial oversight" under Article 1, Section 12 of the State Constitution]; P.J. PDF Supreme Court of The United States I dissent. 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. 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]. 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. Texas court to decide if 2 drug seizures were legal This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. The importance of upholding our preservation rule that requires a defendant to make a specific state constitutional argument is buttressed by United States Supreme Court precedent concerning an independent state ground for purposes of that Court's jurisdiction (see Michigan v Long, 463 US 1032, 1044 [1983]). 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. Your 4th Amendment Rights The 4 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure . Cases - Search and seizure - {{meta.siteName}} 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. Wilson, J. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. . Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. 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. The requirement that warrants must describe with particularity the places, vehicles, and persons to be searched is vital to judicial supervision of the warrant process (see People v P.J. at 126-127). Defendant's [*7]expectation of privacy in the vehicles is not disputed. 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). 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. Pero hay contrastes con el caso de los papeles recuperados en la residencia de Trump. As a result, Supreme Court ordered the suppression of physical evidence seized from the two vehicles. We next addressed the search of a vehicle associated with a residence in People v Hansen. "This rule applies equally to all containers" (id. . Siegal represents John Drago who owned and operated a check cashing business, Kayla Companies. People v Gordon 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. 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.