New York Law Review

Tag: Unlawful Search and Seizure

  • People v. Velez, 73 N.Y.2d 735 (1988): Harmless Error and Illegally Obtained Evidence

    People v. Velez, 73 N.Y.2d 735 (1988)

    When a constitutional error occurs during a criminal trial, such as admitting illegally obtained evidence, a conviction can only stand if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of robbery. The trial court admitted photographs of leather jackets that had been suppressed as the product of an unlawful search and seizure. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the conviction, holding that the admission of the photographs, although conceded to be constitutional error by the prosecution, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the prosecution’s case was not overwhelming, the complainant’s credibility was questionable, and the photographs corroborated the complainant’s testimony and were specifically requested by the jury during deliberations.

    Facts

    The defendant was indicted for allegedly taking two leather jackets from the complainant at gunpoint.

    Prior to trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the two leather jackets, finding that they were the product of an unlawful search and seizure.

    At trial, over defense counsel’s objection, the People introduced photographs of the suppressed leather jackets as evidence in their direct case.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted the defendant.

    The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding that the admission of the photographs was error.

    The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by leave of the dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the admission of photographs of evidence suppressed as the product of an unlawful search and seizure was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Holding

    No, because there was a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the conviction.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that to determine whether a constitutional error is harmless, a court must assess the quantum and nature of the evidence against the defendant if the error were excised, and the causal effect the error may have had on the jury. The court referenced People v. Hamlin, 71 NY2d 750, 756, and noted the standard for harmless error is whether “there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the conviction”.

    In this case, the prosecution’s case was not overwhelming, relying heavily on the testimony of the complainant, whose credibility was questionable due to his extensive criminal history. Moreover, the photographs of the leather jackets corroborated the complainant’s testimony that he possessed the jackets and were the first items the jury requested during deliberations.

    Because the photographs were the only evidence corroborating the complainant’s story and were specifically requested by the jury, the court found a reasonable possibility that they influenced the verdict. Therefore, the error in admitting the photographs was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that under these specific facts, the error warranted reversal of the conviction. This case highlights the importance of excluding illegally obtained evidence and the high standard required to deem the admission of such evidence as harmless error.

  • People v. Allende, 39 N.Y.2d 474 (1976): Unjustified Vehicle Stop and Search Based on Whim

    People v. Allende, 39 N.Y.2d 474 (1976)

    A vehicle stop and search is illegal if based on a mere whim or caprice, without any reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

    Summary

    This case addresses the legality of a vehicle stop and search. Police officers, without any prior information or reasonable suspicion, approached a double-parked car with guns drawn, effectively seizing the vehicle and its occupants. A subsequent search revealed an illegal weapon. The New York Court of Appeals held that the seizure was unlawful because it was based on a mere whim, lacking any reasonable basis to suspect criminal activity. Therefore, the evidence obtained from the illegal search was inadmissible, and the defendant’s conviction was overturned.

    Facts

    Two plainclothes police officers in an unmarked taxi observed four men, including Allende, in a double-parked car with the engine running. The officers had no prior information about the vehicle or its occupants. Without any radio bulletin or other information suggesting criminal activity, the officers approached the vehicle with their guns drawn.

    Procedural History

    Allende was charged with possession of a weapon. He moved to suppress the gun as evidence, arguing it was obtained through an illegal search. The trial court denied the motion, and Allende pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the police officers’ approach of the double-parked vehicle with guns drawn, absent any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, constituted an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution, thereby rendering the subsequent search and seizure of the weapon unlawful.

    Holding

    Yes, because the police action constituted an unlawful seizure based on nothing more than a whim or caprice, as the officers lacked any reasonable basis to believe that the occupants had committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals determined that approaching the vehicle with guns drawn constituted a seizure under both the State and Federal Constitutions. The legality of the seizure hinged on whether the officers had reasonable cause for the intrusion. The court emphasized this was not a routine traffic stop, as the officers admitted their primary objective was to determine if the vehicle was stolen, not to address the double-parking violation. Quoting Terry v. Ohio, the court stated that the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure must “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.” The court found no such facts existed, stating, “the seizure, judged as it must be as of its inception, was one based on nothing but a mere ‘whim or caprice’.” Because the initial seizure was unlawful, the subsequent discovery of the weapon was also tainted, and the evidence should have been suppressed. The court emphasized the importance of deterring unlawful police conduct, quoting Elkins v. United States: “to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way— by removing the incentive to disregard it”.