Even then, the permissible "scope of a search has been carefully limited" by the requirement for probable cause and a particular description of the subjects to be searched (Dumper, 28 NY2d at 299). . 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. To avoid answering the state constitutional component on preservation grounds would be to overrule those cases as a matter of federal and state constitutional law, while concomitantly maintaining that defendant failed to preserve a state constitutional claim. Washington CNN The Supreme Court on Monday wiped away a lower court decision that held that law enforcement could enter a Rhode Island man's home and seize his firearms without a warrant. . Friday, March 29, 2019: Hammock v. Jensen et al: Southern District of Iowa : Civil Rights, Criminal Law Related Civil Cases, Search and Seizure : Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss : Olmo-Artau v. Farr, et al. 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. 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). We have on several occasions addressed the permissible scope of a search based on allegations of illegal activity occurring at a residence or premises (see e.g. BOGGS, Justice. 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. 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. But the location of that search was an im-pounded vehiclenot a home"'a constitutional differ-ence'" that the opinion repeatedly stressed. Shield to look into the matter. 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 37). . 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. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 19, n. 16 (1968). From the search of the Nissan, the police retrieved quantities of heroin, cocaine, and assorted drug paraphernalia. One man, mature FBI agent working on a case in dark office. The warrant here authorized the search of a particular van and nothing else. The majority seems primarily concerned about the possibility that vehicles parked on a target's premises might belong to a visiting friend or acquaintance (majority op at 15, 16 n 2)a possibility I view as quite remote where, for example, the vehicle is found in an enclosed structure (such as a garage), in a backyard, or behind a gate, or when no visiting friend or acquaintance is in fact present at the premises. 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 . Judges Rivera, Stein and Fahey concur. 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. Government prosecutorssaid that they intend to seek a superseding indictment on new allegations. The fact that premises are generally fixed while persons and vehicles are moveable presents a problem to officers executing search warrants. Your 4th Amendment Rights The 4 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure . 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. at 21 [emphasis added]). South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 367-368 [1976]; People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]). Adopting the People's position would lead to the incongruous result that proof that a vehicle had an ongoing connection with a property would be insufficient to justify a search, while a warrant application that makes no mention of the vehicle would somehow provide greater cause to search that vehicle. 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]). This is a BETA experience. The issue in Hansen was whether there was probable cause for the search warrant directed at "two separate target locations discretely described," namely a residence and an "automotive van wherever located" (id. Supreme Court granted Mr. Gordon's motion to suppress. It is the majority's treatment of the state constitutional issue that is most problematic. As we stated in Hansen, the mere presence of a vehicle seen at the sight of premises wherein the police suspect criminal activity to be occurring does not by itself provide probable cause to search the vehicle (see id. . Discipline in this area benefits not only the Supreme Court in determining its own jurisdiction, but also this Court in establishing a respected body of state constitutional law. 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. 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. 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]). G.R. 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. (c) A designated or described person"]). No other contraband was found on Mr. Gordon's person or in the interior of the residence. Defendant's [*7]expectation of privacy in the vehicles is not disputed. There is no justification for such an extreme position. A Bankruptcy or Magistrate Judge? A Judge of this Court granted the People's motion for leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]), and we now affirm. We next addressed the search of a vehicle associated with a residence in People v Hansen. 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. To the extent that the dictum in Sciacca was referring to a scenario where a search warrant only describes a particular structure, it has no application where, as here, instead of limiting the search to a specific structure, the search warrant authorizes a search of the "entire premises," which, as particularized in this case, included the house as well as surrounding private property. . In Hansen, the police surveilled the van in question, recorded its repeated travels to and from the residence, and specifically mentioned the vehicle in the warrant. Counts 5 through 9 rested in large part on the physical evidence seized from the two vehicles. The majority's rejoinderthat the absence of any discussion of the State Constitution "does not render our repeated citations to [it] meaningless" (majority op at 18)makes a parallel citation the equivalent of principled state constitutional discourse. However, we held that the police lacked sufficient evidence to search a vehicle that had been seen coming and going from the residence. It's difficult to have a case without evidence. 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. 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." 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. No such connections were made here. 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. 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]). A search of the Chevrolet revealed a loaded handgun. 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, . 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. 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"]). As a repeat offender, a Passaic County judge sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 25 years, and at. This means that law enforcement agents need probable cause, and a warrant in most cases, to search your person or belongings. United States v Pennington, 287 F3d 739, 745 [8th Cir 2002]; United States v Percival, 756 F2d 600, 611-613 [7th Cir 1985]). at 128). 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]). By Steve Eder,Matthew Rosenberg,Joseph Goldstein,Mike Baker,Kassie Bracken and Mark Walker. A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal (33 NY3d 976 [2019]). Indeed, the observed pattern, as described in the affidavit, was for Mr. Gordon to proceed from the residence to the street and back, without detouring to any vehicles parked at the residence. 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. Those federal courts extending Ross to automobiles on the theory that an automobile is no different than a paper bag have found difficulty in arriving at a single standard for determining what vehicles may be searched: they disagree regarding whether police officers may search any vehicle found onsite during the execution of a premises warrant or only those vehicles that are "owned or controlled by the owner of . Nevertheless, in our view, that does not render our repeated citations to the State Constitution meaningless. against unreasonable searches and seizures." This case concerns the "seizure" of a "person," which can take the form of "physical force" or a "show of authority" that "in some way restrain[s] the liberty" of the person. Order affirmed. 690) and decisional law"]). at 822 [emphasis added]). People v Garvin, 30 NY3d 174, 185 n 8 [2017] ["Any issues regarding whether New York Constitution, article I, 12 provides greater protection . The garage was completely distinct, indeed incidental, to any illegal activity" (id. The police searched a car based on the smell of marijuana. At the police station, Detectives Fichter and Latorre conducted an inventory search of Williams' car in accordance with the NYPD's . 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. 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] . 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. No. Although this Court has, starting in the 1980s, adopted "independent standards" under the State Constitution,[FN10] we have also continued to stress that the history of article I, 12 of the New York Constitution "supports the presumption" that the provision against unlawful searches and seizures conforms with that found in the Fourth Amendment (People v P.J. I dissent. It was not immediately clear under what circumstances the lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran, appeared, but he has had a key role in the case examining Mr. Trumps handling of government documents. . 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). 2651 PDF 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. provided an affidavit to an Eastern District of NYmagistrate judge to request a search of Kayla. The determinative question on appeal is whether a valid warrant, supported by probable cause and authorizing the search of the "entire premises," permits the search of vehicles parked on the designated premises, when the vehicles may contain the items authorized to be seized by the warrant, but the warrant does not specifically mention the vehicles.