New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Spinelli

  • People v. Spinelli, 42 N.Y.2d 87 (1977): Warrantless Search Permissible Where No Expectation of Privacy and Exigent Circumstances Exist

    People v. Spinelli, 42 N.Y.2d 87 (1977)

    A warrantless search is permissible if conducted in an area where the defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy, and exigent circumstances exist.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a tax investigator’s observation of the defendant’s activities on their driveway, coupled with information from his supervisor, established probable cause for him to be there. The court further held that the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their driveway given their overt activities. Additionally, the presence of vehicles capable of quickly removing a large quantity of illegal cigarettes created exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search and seizure of the garage’s contents.

    Facts

    A tax investigator, acting on information partly provided by his supervisor, entered the defendants’ driveway and observed their activities. The activities were overt. The defendants possessed a large stock of untaxed cigarettes stored in a garage and had vehicles readily available for the rapid removal of these cigarettes.

    Procedural History

    The suppression court ruled against suppressing the evidence found in the garage. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the tax investigator had probable cause to enter the defendant’s driveway.
    2. Whether the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their driveway.
    3. Whether exigent circumstances existed that justified a warrantless search and seizure of the contents of the garage.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the tax investigator’s testimony, combined with information from his supervisor, furnished the requisite probable cause.
    2. No, because the defendants’ activities were carried on in such an overt manner that they had no logical expectation of privacy in their driveway.
    3. Yes, because the truck and other vehicles available to the defendants presented exigent circumstances, making the search and seizure of the garage’s contents permissible without a warrant.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the investigator had probable cause based on his observations combined with information from his supervisor. The court acknowledged that while a private driveway is generally protected against unreasonable search and seizure, the defendants’ overt activities negated any reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. The court relied on precedent establishing that what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in their own home or office, is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Moreover, the court determined that exigent circumstances existed because the defendants possessed vehicles capable of quickly removing the large stock of illegal cigarettes, potentially thwarting any attempt to obtain a warrant in time to prevent the removal of the evidence. As such, a warrantless search and seizure was justified. The court cited People v. Vaccaro, 39 N.Y.2d 468, 472-473, and People v. Clements, 37 N.Y.2d 675, 679, cert den 425 U.S. 911, in support of this conclusion. The court found that the investigator, in positioning himself on the driveway, had not invaded an area as to which the defendants had a logical expectation of privacy. “Furthermore, though a private driveway leading to a home is not outside the area entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizure…the record in this case reveals that the driveway here was one in which the defendants’ activities were carried on in such an overt manner that the suppression court had a right to find that the investigator, in positioning himself there, had not invaded an area as to which defendants had a logical expectation of privacy.”

  • People v. Spinelli, 35 N.Y.2d 77 (1974): Warrantless Search of Commercial Property and Plain View Doctrine

    People v. Spinelli, 35 N.Y.2d 77 (1974)

    A warrantless search and seizure of items on private commercial property is unconstitutional, even if the items are in plain view, when there is no exigency and ample time to obtain a warrant.

    Summary

    This case concerns the legality of a warrantless search and seizure of stolen trucks located on the defendant’s commercial property. The Court of Appeals held that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the trucks, although in plain view, were not discovered inadvertently and there was no exigency justifying the failure to obtain a warrant. The court emphasized that the plain view doctrine does not eliminate the need for a warrant when law enforcement has prior knowledge of the evidence and ample opportunity to secure judicial authorization.

    Facts

    The FBI received information in September 1971 about two hijacked trucks, one leased by Hertz to P. B. Trucking Company marked “Roxanne Swim Suits,” and another belonging to Metropolis Trucking Company. In March 1972, an informant told FBI Agent Garber that both trucks were behind the defendant’s business, Al Spinelli Company. Garber, using binoculars from a public golf course adjacent to the property, observed the trucks matching the descriptions. The local police confirmed the trucks were still listed as stolen.

    Procedural History

    After months of surveillance, the Clarkstown police, acting on Garber’s information, also observed the vehicles from the golf course in August 1972. On August 21, 1972, the defendant was arrested outside his business on an unrelated warrant for unlawful use of credit cards. After the arrest, officers entered the property without a search warrant, inspected the trucks, and seized them. The defendant was later indicted for unlawful possession of one of the trucks. The County Court ordered suppression of the evidence, but the Appellate Division reversed. This appeal followed.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the truck from the defendant’s commercial property violated the Fourth Amendment, despite the truck being in plain view.

    Holding

    Yes, because the plain view doctrine requires inadvertent discovery and does not eliminate the warrant requirement when the police have prior knowledge of the evidence and ample opportunity to obtain a warrant. Additionally, the arrest on the credit card charge did not justify the search of the area behind the premises.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the warrantless search and seizure were unconstitutional. The court acknowledged that a businessman’s private commercial property is entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. The court emphasized that the officers knew about the trucks for months, there were no license plates, and there was no risk of the evidence being moved. Therefore, there was no exigency justifying the failure to obtain a warrant. The court cited Coolidge v. New Hampshire, stating that “plain view alone is never enough to justify a warrantless search” and that the discovery must be inadvertent. The court reasoned that, here, the viewing of the trucks could not be said to be inadvertent, as the police anticipated finding them there. The Court emphasized that the officers had probable cause and ample time to secure a warrant. The arrest of the defendant on a credit card charge did not justify a search of the area behind the premises. “The mere fact that it would be burdensome to obtain a warrant, standing alone, is never justification for not obtaining a search warrant.” The court also noted that while the officers could testify to what they observed from the golf course, the actual entry and seizure required a warrant under the circumstances.