People ex rel. Maxian on Behalf of Roundtree v. Brown

• Decision Date: 26 March 1991
• Parties: , 570 N.E.2d 223 The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Michele MAXIAN, on Behalf of Damon ROUNDTREE, et al., Respondents, v. Lee BROWN, as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, et al., Appellants. The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Martin MURPHY, on Behalf of James LOVELLS, et al., Respondents, v. Lee BROWN, as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 575

568 N.Y.S.2d 575

77 N.Y.2d 422, 570 N.E.2d 223

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Michele MAXIAN, on Behalf of Damon ROUNDTREE, et al., Respondents, v. Lee BROWN, as Commissioner of the New York City Police

Department, et al., Appellants.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Martin MURPHY, on Behalf of James LOVELLS, et al., Respondents, v. Lee BROWN, as Commissioner of the New York City Police

Department, et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 26, 1991.

[77 N.Y.2d 423] Victor A. Kovner, Corp. Counsel (Fay Leoussis, Leonard Koerner, Francis F. Caputo and Stephen J. McGrath, of counsel), New York City, for appellants.

Michele Maxian, Robert M. Baum and Ivar Goldart, New York City, for respondents.

Henry J. Steinglass, Anthony Ferrara, Jack Hoffinger, Jack Litman, Gerald Lefcourt, Ursula Bentele, Charles Adler and [77 N.Y.2d 424] James Shorris, New York City, for Ass'n of the Bar of the City of New York and others, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Under CPL 140.20(1), a police officer, after performing without unnecessary delay the required preliminary police duties, must without unnecessary delay bring a person arrested without a warrant to a local criminal court for arraignment. This appeal involves consolidated habeas corpus proceedings challenging the various prearraignment delays to which persons arrested in New York County were subject. The first proceeding (the Roundtree proceeding) was heard in Supreme Court, New York County (Soloff, J.), and the second proceeding (the Lovells proceeding) was heard in the same court (McQuillan, J.). The trial courts reviewed the existing arrest procedures in New York County and granted the petitions to the extent of providing that arrestees held in custody for more than 24 hours without arraignment are entitled to release unless an acceptable explanation for the delay is given. The Appellate Division affirmed and granted leave to this court. 164 A.D.2d 56, 561 N.Y.S.2d 418. We find no reason on the record before us to disturb the order of the court below.

In January 1990, the Legal Aid Society established a practice of filing habeas corpus proceedings against the New York City Police and Correction Commissioners on behalf of arrestees who remained in prearraignment custody in excess of 24 hours. As of April 20, 1990, there were in excess of 9,000 such arrestees. Justice Soloff consolidated these writs into one proceeding (the Roundtree proceeding). At the time of the decision, each arrestee had been arraigned. Justice Soloff nonetheless invoked the mootness exception because the issue surrounding the prearraignment delay is "the quintessential issue 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' ". Neither party now disputes that the issues raised are properly reviewable under this mootness exception.

Justice Soloff expressly detailed the facts concerning some representative relators, including Sei Boo who was arrested for selling umbrellas without a license and was arraigned 94 1/2 hours after arrest and Harold Fernandez who was arrested for a "B" felony drug sale and arraigned approximately 45 hours after his arrest. Justice Soloff reviewed the Second Circuit's decision in Williams v. Ward, 845 F.2d 374 [2d Cir.1988], cert. denied 488 U.S. 1020, 109 S.Ct. 818, 102 L.Ed.2d 807 which held that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution was not violated when arrestees in the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens were arraigned within 72 hours of arrest.

Reaching essentially the same factual conclusions as the Second Circuit in Ward, she concluded that the arrest-to-arraignment steps follow a general pattern: "the arrestee is brought to the arresting officer's precinct where the case is reviewed by a superior officer, forms are filled out and fingerprints usually taken. The next stop is Central Booking for photographing, and either initial or, if needed, further fingerprinting and transmission of the prints to Albany. Also at Central Booking, the defendant is usually interviewed by a Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) caseworker to obtain information for the court to use at arraignment in fixing a securing order. At Central Booking, the arrestee and officer part company. During the time that fingerprint records are awaited and CJA is at work, the arresting officer goes to the District Attorney's complaint room to have the case evaluated and the complaint drawn. If the complaint room is closed, the officer returns the next day. All the paper work is then assembled. The defendant, meanwhile, must be collected from whatever precinct he has been lodged if space limits at 100 Centre Street have not permitted him to be brought directly from Central Booking to the courthouse. Once in the courthouse, the case papers must be docketed and the [arrestee] * * * must be made available for counsel interview, interviewed and arraigned."

Justice Soloff also found, consistent with the Second Circuit's conclusions in Ward, that the initial 11 to 15 hours following arrest are generally consumed by the above police functions and the "totality of the processes" can usually be completed "in 24 hours with time to spare including any travel which must be done within New York County". She found all the arrestees were...