People v. Natal, 75 N.Y.2d 379 (1990)

Personal items lawfully exposed to police view and held by a jail for safekeeping may be transferred to the District Attorney without a warrant for use as trial evidence, provided there is no post-arrest investigation or “fishing expedition” involved.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a District Attorney could obtain a defendant’s clothing and personal effects, held at the jail during pretrial confinement, via a subpoena returnable to himself. The court held that the defendant suffered no constitutional deprivation, even though the District Attorney misused court process, because the items were already lawfully exposed to view and the action did not constitute a post-arrest investigatory “fishing expedition.” The conviction was affirmed, but the court cautioned against replicating the District Attorney’s subpoena practice.

Facts

The defendant was arrested for breaking into a house. As part of police routine, his clothing and personal effects were inventoried and stored at the Westchester County jail while he awaited trial. Nine months later, a week before trial, the District Attorney served a subpoena on the jail’s “Booking Officer,” demanding specific items of clothing worn by the defendant at the time of the alleged incident, returnable “forthwith” to the District Attorney. The subpoena form lacked a court part or judge’s name. The jail complied, handing over the requested items.

Procedural History

The defendant moved to suppress a red bandana, blue bag, and letter opener, arguing the District Attorney’s actions constituted an unlawful seizure and abuse of the subpoena process. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant was convicted of burglary, grand larceny, and criminal mischief. The disputed items were admitted as evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding no illegal search or seizure, and deemed any error harmless given eyewitness testimony and in-court identification. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether personal items exposed to police view under unobjectionable circumstances and then lawfully held by the jail for safekeeping may be transferred to the District Attorney, without a warrant, for use as trial evidence.

Whether the District Attorney’s use of a subpoena, returnable directly to his office, to obtain said items, constitutes an abuse of process requiring suppression of the evidence.

Holding

Yes, because the items were already lawfully exposed to view, the defendant retained no reasonable expectation of privacy in them, and the transfer did not constitute a post-arrest investigatory “fishing expedition.”
Even though the District Attorney misused court process, reversal was not warranted.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while the defendant retained a property interest in his belongings, he lacked a constitutionally protected privacy interest. Citing People v. Reynolds, the court emphasized that a property interest does not automatically equate to a privacy interest protectable by search and seizure guarantees. The court noted the items were known personal articles, already fully exposed to view and identified, relevant to the defendant’s identification at trial, and not sought for further searching or experimentation. Reference was made to People v Perel, 34 NY2d 462 where the court held that no reasonable expectation of privacy was invaded when the police simply looked again at what they had already lawfully seen.

Regarding the subpoena, the court stated that subpoenas are court processes, not tools for parties. While the District Attorney issues subpoenas, they are mandates of the court for the court. “CPL 610.25 (1) makes clear that where the District Attorney seeks trial evidence the subpoena should be made returnable to the court, which has ‘the right to possession of the subpoenaed evidence.’” The court found the District Attorney circumvented protections against subpoena abuse by making it returnable to himself.

However, the Court ultimately concluded that preclusion of the evidence and reversal of the conviction were not required because the eyewitness identification of the defendant was unequivocal, and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Despite affirming the conviction, the court strongly cautioned against replicating the District Attorney’s subpoena practice.