People v. Camme

• Decision Date: 08 February 1982
• Citation: 447 N.Y.S.2d 621,112 Misc.2d 792
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Anthony CAMME, William Nieves and Thomas Rein, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 621

447 N.Y.S.2d 621

112 Misc.2d 792

PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Anthony CAMME, William Nieves and Thomas Rein, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Criminal Term,

Queens County, Part J9.

Feb. 8, 1982.

John Santucci, Dist. Atty., Queens County by Jeffrey Segal, Bayside, for the people.

Schoer & Sileo by Michael Sileo, Forest Hills, for defendant, Anthony camme.

Lubash & Gardner by David B. Lubash, Jamaica, for defendant, William Nieves.

Ceasar Cirigliano, New York City by Lawrence Schoenbach, Kew Gardens, for defendant, Thomas Rein.

JOSEPH F. FARLO, Judge.

The following constitutes the findings, conclusions and decision of the court:

A hearing was held before this court on November 19, November 20 and December 4, 1981 on defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence. The court heard testimony from Police Officer Lawrence Andrews, shield number 7981 assigned to the 113th Precinct, Sergeant Carl Bergstrom, shield number 2560 assigned to the Auto Crime Division, and the defendant, THOMAS REIN. The court finds the testimony of Officer Andrews and Sgt. Bergstrom to be credible and not marred by any serious inconsistencies.

On April 20, 1981, Officer Andrews, who at that time was assigned to the Auto Crime Unit along with Sgt. Bergstrom and two fellow officers, placed the premises known as Jasons Auto Salvage II under observation. The premises consisted of a fenced in yard containing a trailer near the front gate and an enclosed structure known as a garage in the rear. During approximately one hour while Officer Andrews was watching the yard, he observed the defendants apparently working. He noticed REIN driving a tow truck moving vehicles within the yard. NIEVES came from the garage and went to the trailer several times and had conversations with REIN and CAMME. CAMME was seen in the yard several times and was observed selling a tire to a customer. Officer Andrews obtained a receipt from the individual that had purchased the tire from CAMME. After obtaining the receipt, Officer Andrews and his fellow officers entered the yard. Upon entering the yard, Officer Andrews approached CAMME, who was in the trailer which Officer Andrews knew to be the office. Officer Andrews asked CAMME for the books pertaining to his business including his vehicle register and dismantler's license. CAMME replied that he did not have any, although it appears that later on he did have a register but did not have the dismantler's license. At that time, Sgt. Bergstrom told Officer Andrews that REIN was going through the rear entrance and leaving the premises. Officer Andrews proceeded to the front of the yard and noticed REIN walking up the block. He grabbed REIN's arm and escorted him back to the trailer.

Sgt. Bergstrom, meanwhile, went to the rear of the yard where the garage was located. From the door, he observed smoke and a man working on a car. He went inside the garage and saw NIEVES working with a torch on a late model Cadillac. In addition, he observed two license plates propped on a workbench. Thinking this was the office, Sgt. Bergstrom noticed no dismantling license and requested that NIEVES accompany him to the trailer. Upon arriving at the trailer with NIEVES, Sgt. Bergstrom directed Officer Andrews to check out the car and the license plates. Through a computer check, it was determined that the license plates belonged to a stolen Chevrolet, part of which was outside the garage area, the rest inside. After this information was received, the defendants were placed under arrest. Officer Andrews then investigated the Cadillac which NIEVES had been dismantling and discovered that the owner was unaware that his car had been stolen.

Based upon this information and his observations, Officer Andrews obtained a search warrant later that night. Officer Andrews and his fellow officers searched the yard until after 9:00 P.M. when it was called off due to darkness. The following day, Officer Andrews with fellow officers returned to the yard and seized various items which were vouchered by him and which are the subject matter of the hearing.

The first issue which has been raised is the constitutionality of Section 415-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendants argue that a statute which permits a warrantless search for incriminating evidence or subjects them to penal sanctions for refusal to permit such a search is unconstitutional.

It is axiomatic that the Fourth Amendment protects the defendants' establishment from unreasonable searches unless based on a valid search warrant or some recognized exception to the warrant requirement, (Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930; See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943). While warrantless administrative searches have generally been held to be invalid (see Marshall v. Barlow's Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 56 L.Ed.2d 305), an exception has been carved out for those industries that are closely or pervasively regulated. (United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87; Colonnade Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60.)

In the instant case, it is clear by the enactment of Section 415-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law that the legislature has demonstrated its intention to pervasively regulate the vehicle dismantling industry, (People v. Tinneny, 99 Misc.2d 962, 417 N.Y.S.2d 840; People v. Garcia, 111 Misc.2d 550, 444 N.Y.S.2d 548). It is interesting to note that after the decision in People v. Tinneny, supra, the legislature passed an amendment to Section 415-a to allow for inspection of premises of vehicle dismantlers (L.1979, ch. 691). It appears that such a quick response to the court decision by the legislature clearly shows the importance the state government places on the regulation of this industry. As the Governor's Memorandum approving the legislation indicates, "Motor Vehicle Theft in New York State has been rapidly increasing. It has become a multimillion dollar industry which has resulted in an intolerable economic burden on the citizens of New York ... By making it difficult to traffic in stolen vehicles and parts, it can be anticipated that automobile theft problems will be decreased and the cost to insurance companies and the public may be reduced", (McKinney's Session Laws of New York, 1979, at pp. 1826-27).

Counsel for CAMME in addition to challenging the issue of whether the auto dismantling industry is "pervasively regulated", argues that the statute in question is unconstitutional since it requires an individual to choose between a constitutional right and a penal sanction. As was said in People v. Tinneny, supra at p. 970, 417 N.Y.S.2d 840, "The performance required under the statute must be set forth with sufficient clarity, and not be so vague, so that a person of common intelligence can ascertain its meaning; and it must be sufficiently explicit to inform those subject to it what conduct would render them liable. That is, it must be informative on its face giving unequivocal warning of what should be done. Cast in this light this statute gives adequate notice of what is required of a person operating a business such as this defendant. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the instant statute carries with it the strong presumption of validity, (People v. Pagnotta, 25 N.Y.2d 333 ), and that the Legislature has found facts indicating a need for its enactment (see Matter of Taylor v. Sise, 33 N.Y.2d 357 )".

...