New York Law Review

Tag: Warrant Requirement

  • People v. Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 433 (2009): Warrantless GPS Tracking Violates New York Constitution

    12 N.Y.3d 433 (2009)

    Under the New York State Constitution, the prolonged warrantless use of a GPS device to track a vehicle’s movements on public roads constitutes an unreasonable search, requiring suppression of the evidence obtained.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that the warrantless placement and use of a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle for 65 days violated the suspect’s rights under the New York State Constitution. The court reasoned that continuous GPS surveillance constitutes an unreasonable search because it reveals a detailed profile of a person’s movements and associations, far exceeding what could be obtained through visual surveillance. This level of intrusion requires a warrant based on probable cause.

    Facts

    State Police Investigator placed a GPS tracking device (a “Q-ball”) on the defendant Weaver’s van while it was parked on a public street, without obtaining a warrant. The device monitored the van’s location continuously for 65 days. The GPS data was used as evidence against Weaver in a burglary case, placing his van near the scene of the crime.

    Procedural History

    The County Court denied Weaver’s motion to suppress the GPS data. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation. A dissenting justice granted leave to appeal. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granted the motion to suppress the GPS evidence, and ordered a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the warrantless placement and use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle to monitor its movements on public roads for an extended period constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution.

    Holding

    Yes, because the prolonged, warrantless use of a GPS device to track a vehicle’s movements constitutes an unreasonable search under the New York State Constitution, requiring a warrant supported by probable cause.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court grounded its decision on the right to privacy guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, noting that this right extends beyond protection of property interests and encompasses the right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. While individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy in their vehicles on public roads, this does not equate to a complete surrender of privacy. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Knotts, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of a beeper to track a container of chloroform, emphasizing that GPS technology is “vastly different and exponentially more sophisticated and powerful technology” than the beeper used in Knotts. GPS surveillance provides a comprehensive record of a person’s movements, associations, and activities, revealing far more than visual surveillance could. The court noted, “What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations—political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few—and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits.” The court acknowledged that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment— subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions” (quoting Katz v. United States). The placement of the GPS device for 65 days did not meet any exception to the warrant requirement. The court explicitly based its holding on the New York State Constitution, leaving the federal constitutional question open. Citing Delaware v. Prouse, the court stated “An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation…Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles”. The court recognized that technological advances can easily produce abuse and found the risk unacceptable. Therefore, it held that absent exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual’s whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause.

  • People v. More, 97 N.Y.2d 209 (2002): Warrantless Body Cavity Searches Require Exigent Circumstances

    97 N.Y.2d 209 (2002)

    A warrantless body cavity search conducted incident to an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless exigent circumstances justify dispensing with the warrant requirement.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of drug possession and other charges after police found crack cocaine in his rectum during a strip search incident to arrest. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the warrantless body cavity search violated the Fourth Amendment because the prosecution failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying the failure to obtain a warrant. The Court emphasized that body cavity searches are highly intrusive and require a warrant unless an immediate search is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence or protect officer safety.

    Facts

    Police entered an apartment with the tenant’s permission and were informed that individuals inside were preparing cocaine for sale. Upon entering, they observed the defendant sitting on a couch with a woman and saw a crack pipe and white rock-like substance on a table. Based on his experience, a detective believed the substance was crack cocaine. The police arrested the defendant and the woman, handcuffed them, and conducted a pat-down search for weapons, which yielded nothing. Subsequently, the police conducted a strip search of both individuals in a bedroom. During the search of the defendant, officers observed a plastic bag protruding from his rectum, which contained cocaine.

    Procedural History

    The defendant moved to suppress the drugs seized from his person, arguing the arrest lacked probable cause and the body cavity search was illegal without a warrant or exigent circumstances. The County Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a warrantless body cavity search, conducted incident to a lawful arrest, is permissible under the Fourth Amendment without a showing of exigent circumstances.

    Holding

    <n

    No, because absent exigent circumstances, a warrant is required for a body cavity search, given the highly intrusive nature of such a search and the need for a neutral magistrate to determine its justification.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), which established that intrusions beyond the body’s surface require a “clear indication” that evidence will be found and, absent an emergency, a search warrant. The Court emphasized the significant privacy interests implicated by body cavity searches, describing them as “invasive” and “degrading,” citing People v. Luna, 73 N.Y.2d 173, 178 (1989). The Court found that the prosecution failed to present any evidence of exigent circumstances that would justify dispensing with the warrant requirement. There was no testimony indicating that an immediate search was necessary to prevent the defendant from accessing a weapon or destroying evidence, especially given that the defendant was already in custody and under police surveillance. The Court noted that the absence of such evidence dictated the conclusion that the body cavity search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. As the court stated, “[S]earch warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings, and absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned”. The Court declined to consider the People’s argument regarding the inevitable discovery doctrine, as it was not properly preserved at trial.

  • People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49 (1982): Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement Defined

    55 N.Y.2d 49 (1982)

    Under the New York State Constitution, a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle, including closed containers visible within it, is permissible if conducted contemporaneously with a valid arrest and if the circumstances provide reason to believe that the vehicle or its contents are related to the crime for which the arrest is being made, or that a weapon may be discovered, or a means of escape thwarted.

    Summary

    Following a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of the New York Court of Appeals’ initial decision, this case revisits the legality of a warrantless search of a jacket found in a car’s passenger compartment after the occupants were arrested for a drug offense. The Court of Appeals, this time, upholds the search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the New York State Constitution, finding probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence related to the crime for which the occupants were arrested.

    Facts

    A state trooper stopped a speeding car on the New York State Thruway. Upon approaching the vehicle, the trooper smelled marijuana and saw an envelope commonly used for marijuana sales on the car floor. The trooper ordered the four occupants, including Belton, out of the car, patted them down, and confirmed the envelope contained marijuana, leading to their arrest. Subsequently, the trooper searched the passenger compartment of the car and found Belton’s jacket on the back seat. Upon opening a zippered pocket of the jacket, he discovered cocaine.

    Procedural History

    The Ontario County Court denied Belton’s motion to suppress the cocaine. Belton pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the sixth degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Initially, the New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding no Fourth Amendment violation. The case was then remanded to the New York Court of Appeals to consider the issue under the New York State Constitution.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, under the New York State Constitution, the warrantless search of Belton’s jacket in the passenger compartment of the car was justified under an exception to the warrant requirement.

    Holding

    Yes, because the search fell within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the New York State Constitution, as the circumstances gave the trooper reason to believe that the vehicle might contain other drugs related to the crime for which the occupants were arrested.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court distinguished its holding from the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis and based its decision on the automobile exception to the warrant requirement under the New York State Constitution. The court acknowledged that the State Constitution protects individual privacy interests against unreasonable searches and seizures, but recognizes exceptions to this protection. The court found that the automobile exception is based on the reduced expectation of privacy in automobiles and their inherent mobility. It reasoned that these considerations logically apply to containers within the passenger compartment. The court emphasized that a valid arrest for a crime authorizes a warrantless search of the vehicle’s passenger compartment, including visible closed containers, when circumstances provide reason to believe that the vehicle or its contents may be related to the crime. In this case, the discovery of marijuana in the car provided such a reason. The court stated, “where police have validly arrested an occupant of an automobile, and they have reason to believe that the car may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted, they may contemporaneously search the passenger compartment, including any containers found therein.” The court clarified that this holding provides meaningful guidance to police officers, delineating the area that may be searched and the circumstances that justify such a warrantless search. The court noted the search must be contemporaneous with the arrest.