New York Law Review

People v. Tolentino, 14 N.Y.3d 382 (2010): Suppressibility of DMV Records After Unlawful Stop

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

14 N.Y.3d 382 (2010)

Pre-existing public records, such as DMV records, are not subject to suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree when the only link between the police activity and the records is that the police learned the defendant’s name during an allegedly unlawful stop.

Summary

Jose Tolentino was stopped for playing loud music. A license check revealed his license was suspended. He argued his DMV record should be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful stop. The New York Court of Appeals held that the DMV record was admissible because the connection between the stop and the record was simply the discovery of his name. The Court reasoned that suppressing identity-related evidence would unduly hinder the justice system, especially when the records are pre-existing and publicly available. The exclusionary rule aims to prevent the government from benefiting from illegally obtained evidence, but it does not extend to information already in official hands.

Facts

  • On January 1, 2005, police stopped Jose Tolentino for playing loud music while driving.
  • A computer check revealed Tolentino’s driver’s license was suspended with multiple suspensions.
  • Tolentino was arrested and charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle.

Procedural History

  • Tolentino moved to suppress his driving record, arguing it was a fruit of an unlawful stop.
  • The Supreme Court granted a Huntley/Dunaway hearing but denied a Mapp hearing, finding no expectation of privacy in DMV records.
  • Tolentino pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation.
  • The Appellate Division affirmed, citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza, holding identity is never suppressible.
  • The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether pre-existing DMV records are subject to suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree where the police learned the defendant’s name during an allegedly unlawful stop, and that name led to the discovery of the records.

Holding

No, because the connection between the stop and the DMV record was simply the discovery of the defendant’s name, and suppressing such records would unduly hinder the administration of justice when the records are pre-existing and publicly available.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The Court relied on INS v Lopez-Mendoza, which held that the identity of a defendant is never suppressible as fruit of an unlawful arrest. The court stated, “the `body’ or identity of a defendant … in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest, even if it is conceded that an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred.”
  • The Court analogized the case to federal circuit court decisions involving illegal residency, where pre-existing government immigration files were not suppressed after an unlawful stop led to the discovery of the defendant’s name.
  • The Court emphasized that the DMV records were public records already in the possession of authorities, citing United States v Crews, which states, “(t)he exclusionary rule enjoins the Government from benefiting from evidence it has unlawfully obtained; it does not reach backward to taint information that was in official hands prior to any illegality”.
  • The Court distinguished Davis v. Mississippi and Hayes v. Florida, where fingerprint evidence was suppressed, because in those cases, the defendants were illegally stopped to obtain evidence connecting them to crimes under investigation, and the evidence established their identities as the perpetrators of those crimes, not simply their identity to establish jurisdiction.
  • The Court considered policy rationales, noting the high social costs of excluding identity-related evidence versus the minimal deterrence benefits, quoting United States v Farias-Gonzalez: “The application of the exclusionary rule to identity-related evidence will have a minimal deterrence benefit, as its true effect will often be merely to postpone a criminal prosecution.”
  • The dissent argued that identity-related evidence can and should be subject to the exclusionary rule, and that Lopez-Mendoza should be read narrowly to apply only to jurisdictional claims.

More ARTICLES