People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403 (1987)
A judge who issues a search warrant is not automatically required to recuse themselves from ruling on a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant; the decision to recuse is a matter of the judge’s individual conscience.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial judge must recuse themselves from ruling on the validity of a search warrant that they had previously issued. The Court held that Judiciary Law § 14 does not compel such recusal and that the decision to recuse is a matter of individual conscience for the court. The Court also rejected the argument that a rule prohibiting judges from reviewing their own search warrants is necessary to protect the integrity of trials, noting the availability of appellate review.
Facts
The defendant was subject to a search warrant issued by a Town Court Justice. At trial, the same judge who issued the warrant presided and ruled on the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during the search. The defendant argued the judge should have recused themselves.
Procedural History
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a trial judge is required to recuse themselves from ruling on the validity of a search warrant that they issued while sitting as a Town Court Justice.
Holding
No, because nothing in Judiciary Law § 14 compels such recusal; the decision is a matter of individual conscience for the court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that Judiciary Law § 14 does not mandate recusal in this situation. The decision to recuse is left to the individual judge’s discretion. The Court referenced prior decisions, including People v. Liberatore, 79 NY2d 208, 217, which held that a judge may entertain a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant they issued, and People v. Tambe, 71 NY2d 492, 506, which held that a judge issuing a search or eavesdropping warrant may entertain a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to it.
The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument that allowing judges to review their own warrants compromises trial integrity. They cited People v. Tambe, stating, “There is no basis to conclude that [Judges who review their own search warrants] fail to give suppression motions anything less than fair and impartial consideration and further review is available by the Appellate Division which possesses the same power in such matters as does the suppression court.” The court also found that the warrant application contained a detailed, signed statement by a codefendant, Charles Burkett, sufficient to establish probable cause.