People v. Washington, 46 N.Y.2d 116 (1978)

To sustain wiretap and eavesdropping orders, probable cause must be established on the face of each application, without relying on unexpressed assumptions or placing an undue burden on defendants to analyze the bases for prior orders.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision to vacate convictions obtained through wiretap and eavesdropping orders. The court held that the orders, obtained during a District Attorney’s investigation of police involvement in illegal gambling, were unsustainable because they relied on unacceptable premises, including unstated connections between evidence, judicial recollection of prior orders’ bases, and an unreasonable burden on defendants to decipher the justification for the orders. The court acknowledged that guilty defendants might escape punishment, but emphasized the importance of upholding procedural justice.

Facts

The New York County District Attorney’s office conducted an investigation into police involvement in illegal gambling operations. During the investigation, the DA obtained 107 wiretap and eavesdropping orders. The legality of these orders was later challenged.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division vacated the convictions that were based on evidence obtained through the wiretap and eavesdropping orders. The People appealed this decision to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether wiretap and eavesdropping orders can be sustained when probable cause is not evident on the face of each application, and instead relies on presumptions about connections between evidence, judicial recollection of prior orders’ bases, and an unreasonable burden on defendants to analyze the justifications for the orders.

Holding

No, because sustaining the orders would require unacceptable presumptions about the linking of evidence, judicial recollection, and the defendant’s ability to understand the unexpressed basis for the orders. It would also place an intolerable burden on the persons for whose protection the restrictions on wiretapping and eavesdropping orders have been imposed.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that sustaining the wiretap and eavesdropping orders required several unacceptable presumptions. First, that connections between evidence could be pieced together despite changes in federal and state law. Second, that the judge signing the orders recalled the bases of prior orders and understood them to be the basis for subsequent orders, even without explicit indication. Third, that reviewing courts and defendants would understand the unexpressed basis upon which the orders had been granted, and that defendants would have a fair opportunity to analyze those bases. The court stated that “None of these presumptions reflect reality and in any event would place an intolerable burden on the very persons for whose protection the restrictions on wiretapping and eavesdropping orders have been imposed.” The court acknowledged that this decision might allow guilty parties to escape conviction, but emphasized that such is the cost of maintaining procedural justice. The court further justified its holding by noting the considerable time that had passed since the crimes and that the issues concerned a gap between older law and current statutory and decisional law. The court concluded that reversing the Appellate Division to “save the prosecutions” would create a damaging precedent by violating fundamental principles of procedural justice.