75 N.Y.2d 18 (1989)
r
r
A law enforcement officer’s disclosure in a search warrant application of intercepted communications relating to unanticipated criminal activity by non-targets of an eavesdropping warrant is a use “appropriate to the proper performance of [the officer’s] official duties” and does not require retrospective amendment of the eavesdropping warrant.
r
r
Summary
r
Defendants were convicted of criminal possession of gambling records after a search of their home pursuant to a warrant. The warrant was based in part on intercepted phone calls made during an authorized wiretap of another individual in a narcotics investigation, which revealed the defendants’ gambling activities. The court held that the use of the intercepted communications in the search warrant application was permissible under CPL 700.65(2) as a use “appropriate to the proper performance of [the officer’s] official duties,” and did not constitute a testimonial use requiring retrospective amendment of the eavesdropping warrant under CPL 700.65(3) and (4). This decision aligns with federal interpretations of similar wiretapping statutes and promotes effective law enforcement.
r
r
Facts
r
Police obtained an eavesdropping warrant for the residence of an individual suspected of narcotics activity. During the wiretap, police intercepted calls between the target and the defendants that indicated the defendants were involved in illegal gambling. Police applied for, but were denied, a prospective amendment to the eavesdropping warrant to include gambling. After completing the narcotics investigation, police used the gambling-related intercepted communications, along with other independently obtained evidence (pen register data), to secure a warrant to search the defendants’ residence. Gambling records were seized during the search, and the defendants were indicted for gambling offenses.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The defendants moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, arguing that the search warrant was invalid because it relied on intercepted communications from the eavesdropping warrant that had not been retrospectively amended to include gambling. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that the disclosure of intercepted communications in a search warrant application fell under CPL 700.65(2) and did not require amendment. The defendants pleaded guilty to criminal possession of gambling records in the second degree, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the disclosure of intercepted communications relating to crimes not enumerated in an eavesdropping warrant, in a subsequent application for a search warrant, constitutes a use “appropriate to the proper performance of [the officer’s] official duties” under CPL 700.65(2), or a testimonial use requiring retrospective amendment of the eavesdropping warrant under CPL 700.65(3) and (4).
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because the disclosure in a search warrant application is a use