People v. Baker, 23 N.Y.2d 255 (1973)

A search warrant may be issued in advance of the imminent or scheduled arrival of seizable property at the place to be searched, provided there is strong evidence that the property will arrive and be in the specified location when the warrant is executed.

Summary

This case addresses the validity of “anticipatory” search warrants, which are issued before the contraband or evidence arrives at the location to be searched. The New York Court of Appeals held that such warrants are permissible if there’s substantial probability that the seizable property will be on the premises when searched. The court reasoned that encouraging the use of warrants, even anticipatory ones, is preferable to warrantless searches. The court emphasized that the evidence supporting the warrant must demonstrate a high likelihood of future possession and that the warrant’s execution must be reasonably contemporaneous with the expected arrival of the property.

Facts

In Baker, a customs inspection in San Francisco revealed marijuana in a package addressed to Barbara Fay Baker in Buffalo. Postal authorities confirmed the contents upon its arrival in Buffalo. A warrant was issued on January 9, 1970, for a search scheduled for January 16, the expected delivery date.
In Glen, an affidavit stated a package containing narcotics, addressed to Glen, was due to arrive at a bus depot. Glen had inquired about the package earlier that day. The warrant was issued on October 29, 1969. When the package wasn’t claimed, officers examined it, found marijuana, and returned it. Glen picked it up the next day and was arrested.

Procedural History

Both Baker and Glen were convicted of possession of drugs. Both challenged the search warrants in pre-trial motions to suppress the evidence, which were denied. The Appellate Division affirmed both convictions. The cases were consolidated on appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a search warrant may be validly issued prior to the imminent or scheduled arrival of seizable property at the place or with the person designated in the warrant.

Holding

Yes, because neither the Constitution nor the relevant statutes prohibit issuing a search warrant in advance of the imminent or scheduled receipt of seizable property, provided that probable cause exists that the property will be present at the time of the search.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment and the New York State Constitution require probable cause but do not explicitly prohibit anticipatory warrants. The critical factor is whether the evidence establishes a “substantial probability” that the seizable property will be on the premises when searched. The court distinguished these situations from warrants based on speculation about future crimes. In these cases, the crime was “in process,” with the necessary elements already set in motion. The court also addressed the statutory requirement that warrants be executed “forthwith”. It interpreted this to mean with “reasonable promptness” and allowed for a reasonable delay under the circumstances. It emphasized the desirability of encouraging police to seek warrants rather than conduct warrantless searches when feasible. Quoting United States v. Ventresca, the Court stated that the Fourth Amendment requirements are “practical and not abstract” and that warrants should be scrutinized in a “commonsense and realistic fashion.” The court also addressed and dismissed Glen’s argument that a hearing should have been held on the motion to supress. Because Glen’s affidavits did not dispute the facts in the warrant application, the veracity of the affiant, or the manner in which the property was seized, a hearing was not required.