People ex rel. Coldwell v. New York State Div. of Parole

• Decision Date: 29 September 1986
• Citation: 506 N.Y.S.2d 761,123 A.D.2d 458
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Larry COLDWELL, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 761

506 N.Y.S.2d 761

123 A.D.2d 458

The PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Larry COLDWELL, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Sept. 29, 1986.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Gerald J. Ryan and Charles C. Davis, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Edward D. Wilford, New York City (Harold B. Ramsey, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and RUBIN, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the New York State Division of Parole and the Superintendent of the Queensboro Correctional Facility appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), dated December 10, 1985, as directed the State Division of Parole to hold a hearing separate and apart from, and prior to, the final parole revocation hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence to be received at the final parole revocation hearing.

Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The petitioner was released to parole supervision on May 24, 1982. On October 18, 1985, a parole violation warrant was executed against the petitioner, and he was served with written notice of the charges. A preliminary hearing was held on October 25, 1985, at which the petitioner sought suppression of certain physical evidence on the ground that the evidence was obtained by means of an unlawful search. The hearing officer would not entertain the motion on the ground that a parole revocation hearing was not the proper forum for such a motion, and that only a court had the authority to determine a suppression motion. The preliminary hearing was concluded, and probable cause to believe that the petitioner had violated the conditions of his parole was found.

On or about November 7, 1985, the petitioner commenced the instant habeas corpus proceeding, seeking to be released from custody on the ground that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was the product of an unreasonable and illegal search. The Supreme Court, Queens County, dismissed the petition and the writ, but ordered the State Division of Parole to hold a hearing prior to the final revocation hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence to be received at the final hearing. At no time were any criminal charges filed in connection with the events surrounding the parole revocation charges.

It is well established that the exclusionary rule applies to administrative proceedings, including parole revocation proceedings (see, People ex rel. Matthews v. New York State Div. of Parole, 58 N.Y.2d 196, 460 N.Y.S.2d 746, 447 N.E.2d 689; People ex rel. Piccarillo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 76, 421 N.Y.S.2d 842, 397 N.E.2d 354; People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175, 401 N.Y.S.2d 31, 371 N.E.2d 794; Matter of Finn's Liq. Shop v. State Liq. Auth., 24 N.Y.2d 647, 301 N.Y.S.2d 584, 249 N.E.2d 440). However the Supreme Court, Queens County, erred in directing the State Division of Parole to hold a hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence to be received at the final hearing, rather than...