78 N.Y.2d 711 (1991)
A violation of CPL 160.50, which mandates the return of photographs and sealing of records after a criminal case is favorably terminated, does not automatically require suppression of otherwise admissible identification testimony in a subsequent, unrelated criminal proceeding.
Summary
Charles Patterson appealed his robbery conviction, arguing that the in-court identification should have been suppressed because it stemmed from a photo array that used a photograph taken during a prior, dismissed charge, violating CPL 160.50. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the use of the photograph was a statutory violation, it did not infringe upon any constitutional right and did not warrant suppression of the identification testimony, absent any claim that the identification procedure itself was impermissibly suggestive. The Court emphasized that CPL 160.50 aims to protect against stigma and discrimination, not to create a constitutionally derived right affecting the reliability of evidence in subsequent cases.
Facts
Michael Hagenbach was robbed and assaulted. He identified Charles Patterson as one of his assailants from a photo array. The photograph of Patterson used in the array was taken in connection with a prior, unrelated criminal charge against Patterson that had been dismissed. An order was issued to seal the case file pursuant to CPL 160.50. Despite the sealing order, the police used Patterson’s photograph in the photo array approximately two months later.
Procedural History
Patterson was convicted of second-degree robbery. He moved to suppress the in-court identification testimony based on the CPL 160.50 violation, but the trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that the use of the photograph did not require per se suppression of the identification testimony. Patterson appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the use of a photograph retained in violation of CPL 160.50 in a photo array requires suppression of subsequent in-court identification testimony in an unrelated criminal proceeding.
2. Whether the trial evidence was legally sufficient to support Patterson’s conviction for robbery.
Holding
1. No, because the violation of CPL 160.50, without more, does not infringe upon a constitutional right and does not automatically warrant suppression of otherwise reliable identification testimony.
2. Yes, because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, provided a sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that Patterson forcibly deprived Hagenbach of his truck and caused him physical injury.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that CPL 160.50 was enacted to protect individuals against whom criminal charges were brought but not sustained, aiming to remove the stigma associated with an accusation. While the statute was violated, the violation did not implicate any constitutional right related to the reliability of the identification process. The Court distinguished this case from those where suppression was warranted due to violations of statutes directly linked to constitutional rights, such as Fourth Amendment protections. The Court noted that the legislature provided a civil remedy for CPL 160.50 violations under the Executive Law, indicating that the statute’s primary purpose was not to create a constitutional right enforceable through the exclusionary rule. The Court stated, “[T]he legislative objective was to remove any ‘stigma’ flowing from an accusation of criminal conduct terminated in favor of the accused, thereby affording protection (i.e., the presumption of innocence) to such accused in the pursuit of employment, education, professional licensing and insurance opportunities.”
The dissent argued that CPL 160.50 protects a “substantial right” closely related to Fourth Amendment protections and the presumption of innocence. It asserted that suppression is an appropriate remedy for statutory violations that implicate constitutional guarantees and that the majority’s decision undermines the deterrent effect of CPL 160.50 and law enforcement’s compliance with it. The dissent argued that CPL 160.50 was designed to protect “reputation and privacy interests by controlling the physical location of the photographs and fingerprints.”