People v. Bogdan
| Decision Date | 04 November 1977 |
| Citation | 59 A.D.2d 1026,399 N.Y.S.2d 766 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John C. BOGDAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edward C. Cosgrove, Dist. Atty., Judith Blake Manzella, Buffalo, for appellant.
Parrino & Cooper, Arthur F. Dobson, Jr., Buffalo, for respondent.
Before MARSH, P. J., and DILLON, HANCOCK, DENMAN and WITMER, JJ.
The People appeal from an order which suppressed as evidence certain gambling records and paraphernalia seized pursuant to a search warrant and upon which the defendant was charged with possession of gambling records in the first degree (Penal Law, § 225.20, subd. 1). The affidavit in support of the search warrant described telephone calls pertaining to gambling which were received by the defendant at premises described as 113 Sweet Avenue in the City of Buffalo, and which were intercepted by the police pursuant to a previously issued eavesdrop order. Based upon these telephone conversations, the affidavit stated that there was reasonable cause to believe that the entire premises at 113 Sweet Avenue were being used by the defendant for the promotion of illegal gambling. The premises to be searched were described as a one and a half story wood frame house consisting of front and rear apartments. The warrant ordered a search of the entire premises at 113 Sweet Avenue.
The court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the seized evidence, holding that an eavesdrop warrant may not issue for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of the crime of gambling as a misdemeanor. The court's decision, however, preceded our determination in People v. DiFiglia, 50 A.D.2d 709, 374 N.Y.S.2d 891, wherein we interpreted the controlling federal statute (U.S.Code, tit. 18, § 2516, subd. (2)) as authorizing wiretap warrants in the investigation of misdemeanor gambling. Thus, the eavesdrop warrant here was lawfully issued for the purpose of investigating gambling in the second degree (Penal Law, § 225.05) and other crimes.
Additionally, the court found that the search warrant was overbroad in that the premises at 113 Sweet Avenue were described as consisting of front and rear apartments. We find, however, that the warrant authorizing a search of the entire premises was clearly supported in the underlying affidavit. It was alleged that the house located at 113 Sweet Avenue was the home of the defendant; that the premises were being used by the defendant for the promotion and advancement of illegal gambling; that it was reasonable to believe that books and records maintained for the purposes of promoting and advancing illegal gambling activity would be found on the premises and that the premises were occupied by the defendant.
The attorney's affidavit in support of the motion to suppress contains no factual allegation contrary to those set forth in the affidavit in support of the search warrant. At oral argument on the suppression motion, it was suggested that one Clifton Young occupied a portion of the premises at 113 Sweet Avenue. The issue here, however, is not whether the defendant was the sole occupant of 113 Sweet Avenue, but rather, whether there was probable cause to search the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of East Hampton v. Omabuild USA No. 1, Inc.
...48; People v. Reynolds, 124 A.D.2d 356, 507 N.Y.S.2d 295, affd. 71 N.Y.2d 552, 528 N.Y.S.2d 15, 523 N.E.2d 291; People v. Bogdan, 59 A.D.2d 1026, 399 N.Y.S.2d 766; People v. Katz, 112 Misc.2d 59, 448 N.Y.S.2d 85). Similarly, the conduct of Town personnel in taking photographs and measuremen......
-
People v. Archeval
...50, 330 N.E.2d 26; People v. Graham, 220 A.D.2d 769, 771, 633 N.Y.S.2d 334), and the warrant was not overbroad (see, People v. Bogdan, 59 A.D.2d 1026, 399 N.Y.S.2d 766). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v. Anderson, 190 A.D.2d 741, 593 N.Y.S.2d 330; Peopl......