People v. Seney, 39 N.Y.2d 527 (1976)

Probable cause for an eavesdropping warrant exists when an affidavit details specific facts linking individuals to criminal activity, even if the affidavit also contains extensive background information.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the initial eavesdropping warrant issued for Raymond Seney was supported by probable cause. Investigator Whelan’s affidavit detailed extensive surveillance linking Seney and others to a large-scale burglary ring. While the affidavit included considerable background information, it also contained specific instances indicating Seney’s involvement, such as renting a house under a false name near burglary sites, his apprehension near stolen property, and suspicious behavior while casing estates. The court found that these specific facts, coupled with background information establishing a sophisticated burglary operation, provided sufficient probable cause, validating subsequent warrants based on evidence obtained from the initial warrant.

Facts

In 1970, Raymond Seney and Salerno moved from Florida to Greenwich, Connecticut, renting a house under a false name and covering the windows. During their five-month occupancy, 32 burglaries with a similar modus operandi occurred in Greenwich and neighboring Westchester County. Seney was apprehended near a safe stolen during a burglary. Police observed Seney driving repeatedly through estate neighborhoods, suggesting he was “casing” the homes. Salerno was also seen crouching near a stone fence of one estate. Furthermore, telephone toll calls from Seney’s phone correlated with the De Witt Wallace burglary and connected him with alleged members of the burglary ring.

Procedural History

The State Police Investigator obtained an eavesdropping warrant targeting Raymond Seney. Evidence from this warrant led to subsequent warrants. The defendant appealed the issuance of the initial warrant arguing it lacked probable cause. The Appellate Division upheld the warrant, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the affidavit submitted by the State Police Investigator provided sufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of the initial eavesdropping warrant directed at Raymond Seney.

Holding

Yes, because the affidavit detailed specific facts and circumstances linking Seney to a large-scale burglary ring, providing a sufficient basis for probable cause despite the inclusion of extensive background information.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while the affidavit was “inartistically drafted” and contained a mass of undifferentiated background material, it also presented specific instances indicative of Seney’s complicity in the burglary ring. These instances included Seney and Salerno renting a house under a false name near burglary sites, Seney’s apprehension near stolen property, and his suspicious behavior “casing” estates. The court acknowledged that the background material, while extensive, was relevant in establishing the scope of the police investigation into a sophisticated burglary ring and the necessity of an eavesdropping warrant as required by former Code Crim. Pro., § 816, subd. 4 and CPL 700.15, subd. 4. The court stated that “the defect, however, does not defeat a warrant otherwise based on probable cause.” Because the initial warrant was properly issued, the evidence derived from it provided a valid basis for the subsequent warrants. The court emphasized the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit, including both the specific facts and the background information, to determine whether probable cause exists. The court implied that a purely technical or hyper-critical reading of the affidavit would be inappropriate in the context of a complex criminal investigation. This approach aims to balance individual rights with the need for effective law enforcement in combating sophisticated criminal enterprises.