44 N.Y.2d 226 (1978)
r
r
An Organized Crime Task Force’s broad investigatory powers do not inherently include the power to obtain or apply for a search warrant without explicit statutory authorization and the approval of the local District Attorney.
r
r
Summary
r
B. T. Productions sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a county judge and the Organized Crime Task Force from retaining business records seized under a search warrant. The Task Force, investigating potential organized crime, seized the records but initiated no prosecution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of the writ, holding that the Task Force lacked statutory authority to obtain a search warrant independently, as their powers are investigatory and prosecutorial, the latter contingent upon specific approvals not obtained in this case. The court emphasized the importance of limiting governmental intrusion on privacy, particularly where less intrusive means like subpoenas are available. The dissent argued prohibition was inappropriate here, as the Task Force was acting in an executive capacity, and suggested replevin as a remedy.
r
r
Facts
r
Agents of the New York State Organized Crime Task Force seized B. T. Productions’ business records pursuant to a search warrant issued by a Monroe County Court Judge.
r
The Task Force did not explain the seizure’s purpose or their interest in the records.
r
No indictments, prosecutions, or presentation of evidence to any accusatory authority resulted from the seizure.
r
The Task Force retained the records for almost two years without initiating any legal action.
r
r
Procedural History
r
B. T. Productions unsuccessfully attempted to regain their property in both state and federal courts.
r
They then commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition.
r
The Appellate Division granted the writ of prohibition.
r
The Task Force and Judge Barr appealed to the Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the Organized Crime Task Force, under Executive Law § 70-a, has the authority to obtain a search warrant as part of its general investigatory powers, absent authorization from the Governor and approval from the local District Attorney.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the Task Force’s investigatory powers, as defined by statute, do not explicitly include the power to obtain a search warrant, and such power cannot be implied, especially considering the existence of broad subpoena powers.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court emphasized that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy appropriate when an entity acts without jurisdiction or exceeds its authorized powers. Public prosecutors are considered quasi-judicial officers subject to prohibition.
r
The court found that the Task Force exceeded its jurisdiction because CPL 690.05 allows search warrants to be issued to “a police officer, a district attorney or other public servant acting in the course of his official duties”.
r
The court analyzed Executive Law § 70-a, which defines the Task Force’s duties as investigating and prosecuting organized crime and cooperating with local law enforcement. The statute grants the Task Force broad subpoena power, but not the explicit power to obtain search warrants.
r
The court reasoned that the Task Force’s prosecutorial powers require authorization from the Governor and approval from the local District Attorney, which were not obtained in this case. The court determined that the power to obtain a search warrant is not implicit in the Task Force’s investigatory powers, especially given its subpoena power.
r
The court noted the constitutional implications of using a search warrant rather than a subpoena in an investigation not aimed at a particular criminal prosecution, raising concerns about unwarranted governmental intrusion on privacy.
r
Quoting from the case, the court declared,