People v. Hansen, 38 N.Y.2d 237 (1975)

A search warrant that authorizes searches of multiple, discrete locations can be partially upheld if probable cause exists for one location, even if probable cause is lacking for the other; additionally, a defendant has automatic standing to challenge the search of a location if possession of the seized property is an essential element of the charged offense.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed the severability of search warrants and the issue of standing to challenge a search. The court held that a warrant authorizing searches of multiple locations can be partially upheld if probable cause existed for one location, even if it was lacking for another. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed the “automatic standing” doctrine, granting standing to a defendant to challenge a search where possession of the seized property is an essential element of the charged offense. Evidence seized from the location lacking probable cause was suppressed due to the defendant’s automatic standing.

Facts

Police officers, investigating a reported burglary at the Hansen residence, observed a large brass smoking pipe, a large scale, and marijuana. Based on these observations and “reliable information” that the defendants had returned from western states with drugs, the police obtained a warrant to search the Hansen residence and a Speake Dodge van seen regularly entering and leaving the premises. The affidavit lacked specific dates, times, frequency, or purpose of the van’s visits. During the search, police seized marijuana and a scale from the van.

Procedural History

The trial court upheld the warrant in its entirety. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a search warrant authorizing searches of two separate locations can be sustained in part if probable cause existed for one location but not the other.
2. Whether the defendant has standing to challenge the search of the Speake Dodge van.

Holding

1. Yes, because where a search warrant authorizes searches of two separate target locations discretely described, authorization to search one may be upheld if probable cause existed as to it even though it is determined that probable cause did not exist as to the other.
2. Yes, because possession of the marijuana and the scale seized from the Speake van might be an essential element of one or more of the offenses charged.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found sufficient probable cause to search the Hansen residence based on the officers’ observations. However, the affidavit lacked sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for searching the Speake Dodge van, as the activity described was