People v. Havelka, 45 N.Y.2d 636 (1978)

The prosecution is not entitled to a rehearing on a motion to suppress evidence if they had a full opportunity to present their case initially and no error of law by the hearing court prevented them from doing so.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that it was improper to remit a case for a second suppression hearing after the Appellate Division found the evidence presented at the first hearing insufficient to justify a search. The Court reasoned that the People had a full and fair opportunity to present their evidence at the initial hearing, and no erroneous ruling prevented them from doing so. Allowing a rehearing under these circumstances would grant the People a second chance to succeed where they had previously failed, potentially leading to tailored evidence and abuse.

Facts

A police officer received information from a desk sergeant about a potential gun battle involving a motorcycle club. The sergeant’s information originated from a tavern owner, who received it from a bartender who overheard a rumor. Based on this information, officers surveilled a group of men, including the defendant, outside the motorcycle club. Although officers observed no suspicious activity or weapons, they frisked the men. The officer frisking the defendant discovered an unregistered handgun and a blackjack. The defendant was arrested and convicted of weapons charges.

Procedural History

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, but the motion was denied. The Appellate Division found the evidence at the suppression hearing insufficient to justify the search and seizure. Instead of reversing, the Appellate Division held the appeal in abeyance and remitted the case for a rehearing to allow the People to present additional evidence. After the rehearing, the lower court adhered to its original determination, and the Appellate Division affirmed both the denial of the motion to suppress and the judgment of conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted review.

Issue(s)

Whether it is proper for a court to remit a case for a second suppression hearing when the People had a full opportunity to present evidence at the first hearing, but failed to present sufficient evidence to justify the challenged police conduct.

Holding

No, because the People had a full opportunity to present evidence at the initial hearing and no erroneous ruling prevented them from doing so. Granting a rehearing would allow the People a second chance to succeed where they had previously failed, increasing the potential for abuse and injustice.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized that while rehearings can be appropriate when the People were prevented from presenting critical evidence due to an error of law by the hearing court, this was not such a case. The Court distinguished this case from cases such as People v. Malinsky, where a rehearing was granted because the court had erroneously denied the defendant’s motion for disclosure of a confidential informant, preventing the People from presenting the informant’s testimony. Here, the People had the opportunity to call the sergeant and the tavern owner as witnesses at the initial hearing but chose not to. The court stated, “Generally, where ‘no contention is made that the People had not had [a] full opportunity to present evidence * * * [t]here [is] no justification * * * to afford the People a second chance to succeed where once they had tried and failed.’” The Court also warned against the potential for abuse if rehearings were granted too readily, stating, “A remand with the benefit of hindsight derived from an appellate court opinion offers too facile a means for establishing probable cause after the event.” The Court expressed concern that tailoring the evidence at the rehearing to fit the court’s established requirements would create a considerable danger. Since the sending and receiving officers were members of the same police department, the potential for distortion was high. Allowing a rehearing would undermine the finality of suppression hearings and create an unfair advantage for the prosecution.