New York Law Review

Tag: Private Search

  • People v. Horman, 22 N.Y.2d 378 (1968): Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Private Citizens

    People v. Horman, 22 N.Y.2d 378 (1968)

    The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures applies only to governmental action; evidence obtained unlawfully by private citizens is admissible in criminal prosecutions.

    Summary

    Horman was apprehended by store detectives for shoplifting. A subsequent search by the store’s security manager revealed a loaded pistol. Horman was acquitted of shoplifting but convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon, after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the pistol. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches conducted by private citizens, and therefore, the evidence was admissible, even if the search was unlawful. The court emphasized that earlier Supreme Court rulings had not extended the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained by private actors.

    Facts

    Two store detectives apprehended Horman outside a department store for alleged shoplifting.
    Horman was taken to the store’s security office.
    The security manager requested Horman to empty his pockets, which he did.
    The security manager then “frisked” Horman, discovering a loaded semi-automatic pistol, which was forcibly taken from him.

    Procedural History

    Horman was indicted for felonious possession of a loaded firearm.
    The trial court denied Horman’s motion to suppress the pistol.
    Horman was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm as a misdemeanor in Nassau County Court.
    The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the conviction.
    The New York Court of Appeals granted review.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Fourth Amendment requires the exclusion of evidence in criminal prosecutions when that evidence was wrongfully obtained by private individuals?

    Holding

    No, because the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful searches and seizures are intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment and its associated exclusionary rule, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are designed to regulate the conduct of government officials, not private individuals. The court cited Burdeau v. McDowell, which established that the Fourth Amendment was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies.
    The court acknowledged that the defendant argued that Burdeau had been overruled by Elkins v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio. However, the court distinguished these cases, explaining that they addressed the admissibility of evidence seized by state officials, not private actors.
    The court stated that, prior to Elkins, evidence seized by state officials was treated differently in federal prosecutions than evidence procured by private individuals. Elkins addressed the admissibility in federal court of evidence illegally seized by state officials, while Mapp extended the exclusionary rule to state courts for evidence seized in violation of the Federal Constitution. Neither case overruled the principle that the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe private conduct.
    The court noted that New York precedent also supported the admissibility of evidence obtained by private individuals, even if unlawfully obtained. “It has long been settled that our State’s prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures (N. Y. Const., art. I, § 12; Civil Rights Law, § 8) do not require exclusion of evidence because a private individual has gathered it by unlawful means.”
    The court concluded that because the evidence in this case was seized without the participation or knowledge of any governmental official, it was admissible in a criminal prosecution. The actions of the store detectives were considered private action, not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

  • Sackler v. Sackler, 15 N.Y.2d 40 (1964): Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Private Illegal Search

    Sackler v. Sackler, 15 N.Y.2d 40 (1964)

    Evidence obtained through an illegal search conducted by private individuals is admissible in a civil proceeding in New York, as the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule applies only to governmental action.

    Summary

    In a divorce case, the husband presented evidence of his wife’s adultery, which had been obtained through a forcible entry into her home by the husband and private investigators. The wife argued that this evidence should be excluded because it was obtained illegally. The New York Court of Appeals held that the evidence was admissible because the exclusionary rule, derived from the Fourth Amendment, only applies to governmental actions and not to illegal searches conducted by private individuals. The Court emphasized that unless there is a constitutional, statutory, or decisional mandate to the contrary, all competent, substantial, credible, and relevant evidence is admissible in court.

    Facts

    The husband sought a divorce from his wife on the grounds of adultery.
    To prove adultery, the husband and private investigators forcibly entered the wife’s home and gathered evidence.
    The wife moved to exclude this evidence, arguing it was obtained illegally.

    Procedural History

    The trial court admitted the evidence and granted the divorce to the husband.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
    The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to determine the admissibility of the evidence.

    Issue(s)

    Whether evidence obtained through an illegal search conducted by private individuals is admissible in a civil divorce proceeding.

    Holding

    Yes, because the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio, applies only to governmental searches and seizures, not to those conducted by private individuals.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment and its exclusionary rule are designed to protect individuals from governmental overreach, not from the actions of private parties. The Court relied on Burdeau v. McDowell, which definitively held that the Fourth Amendment was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies. The Court distinguished Mapp v. Ohio, noting that while Mapp extended the exclusionary rule to state governmental actions, it did not address private conduct. The Court stated, “Neither history, logic nor law gives any support for the idea that uniform treatment should be given to governmental and private searches, and to the evidence disclosed by such searches.” The Court emphasized the importance of allowing all competent, substantial, credible, and relevant evidence to be presented in court, absent a constitutional or statutory prohibition. The court noted that the New York legislature has specifically outlawed evidence secured by particular unlawful means, such as illegal eavesdropping (CPLR 4506; Penal Law, § 738), but that absent similar statutory authority or constitutional compulsion, the courts should not create new exclusions.