In re Elvin G., 12 N.Y.3d 832 (2009)
A suppression hearing is required in juvenile delinquency proceedings when the accused raises a factual dispute on a material point that must be resolved to determine if evidence was obtained constitutionally.
Summary
Elvin G. was subject to a school search. He moved to suppress a knife found during the search, alleging the dean ordered all students to empty their pockets. The presentment agency countered that Elvin voluntarily removed the knife. The New York Court of Appeals held that a suppression hearing was necessary because the conflicting factual accounts created a material dispute regarding the constitutionality of the search. The Court reasoned that the record was insufficiently developed to determine whether a search occurred and, if so, if it was reasonable under the circumstances. The dissent argued that the dean’s actions were justified due to a classroom disruption and were reasonably related in scope to finding the source of the disruption.
Facts
While in class, a cell phone or other electronic device disrupted the class.
According to Elvin G., the school dean ordered all students to stand and empty their pockets to find the device.
According to the presentment agency, the dean asked students to place their bags on their desks, and Elvin G. voluntarily removed a knife from his pocket.
A knife was recovered from Elvin G.
Procedural History
Elvin G. moved to suppress the knife, arguing the search was unconstitutional.
The Family Court denied the motion for a suppression hearing.
The Appellate Division affirmed.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the matter to Family Court for a suppression hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether a suppression hearing is required when there is a factual dispute regarding the circumstances of a search in a school setting, specifically whether the student voluntarily revealed the weapon or whether it was discovered pursuant to an order to empty pockets.
Holding
Yes, because there was a factual dispute on a material point – whether the dean ordered students to empty their pockets (as alleged by Elvin G.) or whether Elvin G. voluntarily removed the knife (as claimed by the presentment agency) – that needed to be resolved to determine if the evidence was obtained constitutionally.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on CPL 710.60 and Family Court Act § 330.2 (1), stating that a suppression hearing is required if the accused raises a factual dispute on a material point that must be resolved before the court can decide the legality of obtaining the evidence.
The court cited People v. Burton, 6 N.Y.3d 584, 587 (2006), emphasizing that a hearing is needed to resolve factual disputes relevant to constitutional permissibility.
The Court applied the People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415 (1993) factors, noting the record was insufficiently developed to properly determine whether a search occurred and, if so, whether it was reasonable under the circumstances, referencing New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995); and Matter of Gregory M., 82 N.Y.2d 588 (1993).
The Court emphasized that if the dean recovered the knife because it was in “plain view,” the constitutional question would be academic, highlighting the importance of resolving the factual dispute.
The dissent argued that the dean was justified in directing students to empty their pockets due to the classroom disruption and the search was reasonably related to finding the offending article, citing New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). The dissent also noted that Matter of Gregory M., 82 N.Y.2d 588 (1993), supports the idea that a search may be reasonable without individualized suspicion when privacy interests are minimal and governmental interests are significant.