People v. Cameron
| Decision Date | 06 May 1974 |
| Citation | 44 A.D.2d 355,355 N.Y.S.2d 19 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edith May CAMERON et al., Appellants. |
Diller & Schmukler, New York City (Joel A. Brenner, Mineola, of counsel), for appellants.
Nicholas Ferraro, Dist. Atty. of Queens County (Charles M. Newell, Woodhaven, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GULOTTA, P.J., and SHAPIRO, CHRIST, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.
The question here is whether evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant should be suppressed because the police officer upon whose affidavit the warrant issued refused, on constitutional grounds, to answer questions at the suppression hearing with regard to his conduct following the seizure (including what he had done with the seized items). The appeals are from six respective judgments convicting the six defendants of various crimes, upon guilty pleas, and the appeals bring up for review three orders denying motions by the defendants to suppress evidence. One of the orders was made after a hearing held pursuant to a remand during the pendency of the appeals, as appears below.
When these appeals were originally before us we held that the statements contained in the police officer's affidavit made a sufficient showing of probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant, but we remanded the case to the Criminal Term solely to determine, after a hearing, whether those statements were perjurious (People v. Cameron, 40 A.D.2d 1034, 339 N.Y.S.2d 12). The remand was predicated on the allegations of the defense that the affidavit contained perjurious statements and that the officer had refused to testify before a Federal Grand Jury inquiring into his official conduct on the ground that his testimony might incriminate him. Noting that a search warrant may be set aside if the affidavit upon which it was issued is shown to be perjurious, we held the appeals from the judgments of conviction in abeyance pending the hearing ordered to determine that issue. That hearing has now been had and Mr. Justice Brennan has determined that the defendants did not sustain the burden which the law places upon them of demonstrating the perjurious nature of the affidavit.
The issue presented is a troublesome one, since the police officer whose veracity is at issue did refuse, on constitutional grounds, to answer questions before Mr. Justice Brennan With regard to the execution of the warrant or his disposition of the items seized.
No one can hold a brief for a police officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cameron v. Fastoff, 176
...to suppress, including Justice Brennan's latest order, and affirmed the convictions of the six petitioners. People v. Cameron, 44 App.Div.2d 355, 355 N.Y.S.2d 19 (2nd Dept. 1974). The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on May 29, The United States Supreme Court on December 9, ......
-
People v. Green
...officers with respect to payoffs After the seizure. This did not affect the accuracy of the original information. See People v. Cameron, 44 A.D.2d 355, 355 N.Y.S.2d 19. ...
-
Cameron v. Hect
...on petitioners by Alfinito, supra. The motion to suppress was again denied, and this time it was affirmed on appeal. People v. Cameron et al., 44 A.D.2d 355, 355 N.Y.S.2d 19, cert. denied 419 U.S. 1049, 95 S.Ct. 624, 42 L.Ed.2d 643 Petitioners then filed in this court their first petition f......
-
People v. Bogdan
...5, 12, 345 N.E.2d 548, 555; People v. Alfinito, 16 N.Y.2d 181, 186, 264 N.Y.S.2d 243, 246, 211 N.E.2d 644, 646; People v. Cameron, 44 A.D.2d 355, 355 N.Y.S.2d 19, cert. den. 419 U.S. 1049, 95 S.Ct. 624, 42 L.Ed.2d 643). The search warrant was sufficiently particular in describing the premis......