People v. Prunty, 44 N.Y.2d 891 (1978)
A wiretap warrant must be based on more than a speculative interest by the applying District Attorney, especially when they cannot prosecute the underlying offense or execute the warrant within their own jurisdiction.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the validity of a wiretap warrant obtained by the Bronx County District Attorney for a phone located in New York County, concerning bribery offenses allegedly committed in New York County. The dissenting opinion argued the Bronx County District Attorney lacked proper authority because there was no evidence any element of the crime occurred in the Bronx. The dissent emphasized that wiretapping is an extraordinary measure that requires strict regulation, including limiting who can apply for such warrants. The dissent concluded the warrant was improperly obtained, and the evidence should be suppressed.
Facts
John Prunty’s home phone in New York County was wiretapped under a warrant obtained by the Bronx County District Attorney. The warrant targeted evidence of bribery and related offenses allegedly committed in New York County. The Bronx County District Attorney conceded that, at the time of the warrant application, no evidence suggested the crimes occurred in Bronx County. Telephone records showed two calls from a Bronx bar to the residences of correctional employees. One correctional officer recalled a call from Prunty, but the location of Prunty during the call was unknown.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted based on evidence obtained from the wiretap. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the Bronx County District Attorney lacked the authority to obtain the warrant. The trial court denied the motion. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a memorandum opinion; however, two judges dissented.
Issue(s)
Whether a District Attorney has the authority to obtain a wiretap warrant for a phone located outside their county, concerning offenses primarily committed outside their county, based only on a speculative connection to their county.
Holding
The majority affirmed the lower court’s decision in a memorandum opinion, implicitly holding that the District Attorney had the authority in this case. The dissenting justices would hold No, because a speculative interest is insufficient, especially when the District Attorney cannot prosecute the offense or execute the warrant within their jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
The majority’s reasoning is not explicitly stated, as the decision was affirmed in a memorandum opinion. The dissent argued that the Bronx County District Attorney’s claim of a “reasonable nexus” to Bronx County was based on speculation. The dissent noted the wiretap targeted a phone in New York County to gather evidence of a crime primarily occurring there, which the Bronx DA could not prosecute. The dissent emphasized that wiretapping is an intrusive investigative technique subject to strict regulation under constitutional mandate and statutory prescription. Citing Berger v. New York, 388 US 41 the dissent reasoned that allowing a District Attorney to obtain a warrant based merely on a speculative interest could lead to an unpredictable proliferation of potential wiretap applicants, undermining the policy of limiting access to such orders to certain designated public officials. The dissent quotes the DA’s concession that no evidence showed crimes in Bronx County at the time of application. The dissent highlights that the “reasonable nexus” relied solely on two brief phone calls from a Bronx bar to correctional employees’ residences, and the speculation that Prunty, a New York County resident, might have made the calls from the bar because he was occasionally seen there.