New York Law Review

Tag: Particularity Requirement

  • People v. Bennett, 33 N.Y.2d 850 (1973): Specificity Requirements for Obscenity Search Warrants

    People v. Bennett, 33 N.Y.2d 850 (1973)

    A search warrant authorizing the seizure of obscene materials must describe the items to be seized with sufficient particularity to prevent the warrant from becoming a general warrant.

    Summary

    This case concerns the validity of a search warrant for obscene materials. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the warrant lacked sufficient specificity in describing the items to be seized. The warrant authorized the seizure of “8mm films cut and uncut, depicting males and females in various positions of sexual intercourse, sodomy and masturbation.” The Court found that this description was too broad and delegated to the police officer executing the warrant the function of determining whether the material was obscene, rendering the warrant invalid. The dissent argued that the warrant was sufficiently specific under the circumstances, especially given the nature of the materials and the evidence presented to the magistrate.

    Facts

    Police obtained a search warrant to search the defendants’ premises. The warrant authorized the seizure of “8mm films cut and uncut, depicting males and females in various positions of sexual intercourse, sodomy and masturbation.” The magistrate had viewed a sample of the films. Based on the search, the defendants were charged with obscenity-related offenses.

    Procedural History

    The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted the motion to suppress, holding that the search warrant was invalid.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a search warrant authorizing the seizure of “8mm films cut and uncut, depicting males and females in various positions of sexual intercourse, sodomy and masturbation” is sufficiently specific to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.

    Holding

    No, because the warrant delegated to the executing officer the determination of what constituted obscenity, which is a judicial function.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the warrant lacked sufficient specificity. The warrant’s language authorized the police to seize films based on their own determination of whether the films depicted “various positions of sexual intercourse, sodomy and masturbation.” The Court cited People v. Abronovitz, 31 N.Y.2d 160, 164, and People v. Rothenberg, 20 N.Y.2d 35, 38, emphasizing that a warrant phrased in language which delegates to a police officer the function of determining whether material is obscene is invalid. The Court found that the description in the warrant was too broad and did not adequately limit the discretion of the executing officer. The dissent argued that the language of the warrant was considerably more specific than the warrants in Rothenberg or Abronovitz, and that the magistrate had before him a film, a scrap of uncut film, and testimonial data which established probable cause for believing that the defendants’ premises housed a large supply of contraband. The dissent also cited United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1268, suggesting that the description was sufficiently specific under the circumstances. The dissent maintained that the warrant told the police, within the limits of the circumstances, exactly what they were to seize. The majority, however, was not persuaded, and reversed the order affirming the denial of the motion to suppress.

  • People v. Rainey, 14 N.Y.2d 35 (1964): Search Warrant Must Particularly Describe Premises

    14 N.Y.2d 35 (1964)

    A search warrant that authorizes the search of an entire building containing multiple separate residential units, based on probable cause to search only one unit, violates the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement and is invalid.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a search warrant authorizing the search of an entire building containing two separate apartments, based on probable cause relating only to one apartment, was unconstitutionally overbroad. The warrant failed to particularly describe the place to be searched, violating both the New York and U.S. Constitutions. Evidence seized from both apartments was deemed inadmissible, even though the occupant of the second apartment did not complain about the search. The Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the indictment against the defendant.

    Facts

    A police officer obtained a search warrant for the premises at 529 Monroe Street, Buffalo, based on an affidavit stating probable cause to believe that the defendant, Rainey, was committing larceny and forgery at that address. The affidavit did not disclose that the building contained two separate apartments: one occupied by Rainey, and the other by Mildred Allison and her child. The warrant authorized a search of the “entire premises” at 529 Monroe Street.

    Procedural History

    The police searched both apartments. In Allison’s apartment, they found nothing. In a shed accessible from Allison’s apartment, they found a check writer and stolen checks. In Rainey’s apartment, they found a typewriter and checks. Rainey moved to vacate the search warrant and suppress the evidence, but the motion was denied. The evidence was admitted at trial over Rainey’s objection. Rainey was convicted. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a search warrant authorizing the search of an entire building containing multiple residential units, based on probable cause relating to only one unit, violates the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched.

    Holding

    Yes, because the warrant’s failure to specify which part of the building was subject to the probable cause showing rendered it a general warrant, violating constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that searching multiple residential apartments in the same building is analogous to searching multiple separate houses; probable cause must be established for each unit. Because the affidavit supporting the warrant only established probable cause to search Rainey’s apartment, the warrant was invalid insofar as it authorized the search of Allison’s apartment. The Court emphasized that the officer knew Allison was an innocent party but failed to inform the court of the building’s layout when seeking the warrant. The Court stated, “It is to avoid ‘a blanket search’ with its obvious interference with the innocent that the State and Federal Constitutions provide that ‘No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, * * * and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized’.” The Court cited federal cases holding that a search warrant commanding the search of an entire residential building is void if probable cause exists for the search of only a single residential space. The Court distinguished cases upholding warrants for single apartments within a multi-unit building when the warrant sufficiently identifies the target apartment. The Court rejected the argument that Allison’s lack of complaint validated the search, stating, “The warrant being void in its inception is void for all purposes, which in this instance includes the execution of its command against this defendant.” The Court emphasized that the focus is on the validity of the warrant at the time of issuance, not on subsequent events. The Court concluded that the warrant’s overbreadth rendered the seized evidence inadmissible.