People v. Carson
| Decision Date | 27 January 1984 |
| Citation | 99 A.D.2d 664,472 N.Y.S.2d 68 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Richard CARSON and Irwin Brown, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Howard R. Relin by Douglas Stoddard, Rochester, for appellant.
Ronald S. Carlisi, Rochester, for respondent Carson.
Karl F. Salzer, Rochester, for respondent Brown.
Before DILLON, P.J., and HANCOCK, GREEN, O'DONNELL and SCHNEPP, JJ.
During a gambling investigation, the police applied for and received an eavesdropping warrant for the express purpose of determining the scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. Later, as a result of information obtained from the authorized wiretaps, warrants were obtained to search two premises for gambling records. Defendants' motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the eavesdropping and search warrants was granted on the ground that the eavesdropping warrant was not supported by a sufficient showing that the police exhausted normal investigative procedures (CPI 700.15, subd. 4; 700.20, subd. 2, par. [b] ). Based on the affidavits supporting the eavesdropping warrant and testimony at a hearing, the court found that the warrant should not have been issued by another county court judge.
The People's contention that the court improperly reviewed a determination made by a fellow judge is without merit. Application of the "law of the case" doctrine is a matter of judicial discretion and is not without limitations (Matter of Silverberg v. Dillon, 73 A.D.2d 838, 423 N.Y.S.2d 838). In this case the application for the eavesdropping warrant was made ex parte. Its veracity and the claimed existence of a confidential informant were questioned by the defendants on their motion to suppress. The court made its decision based not only on the affidavits submitted with the application, but also on additional facts established at the hearing. Under these circumstances the court did not abuse its discretion in entertaining the suppression motion (see CPL 710.50, subd. 1, par. [a]; People v. Versace, 73 A.D.2d 304, 426 N.Y.S.2d 61; Matter of De Joy v. Zitteli, 67 A.D.2d 1076, 413 N.Y.S.2d 526; see People v. Romney, 77 A.D.2d 482, 433 N.Y.S.2d 941; see, also, People v. Martin, 97 Misc.2d 441, 444-445, 411 N.Y.S.2d 822, revd. on other grds, 71 A.D.2d 928, 419 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1 Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y.Prac., § 2:68, p. 82).
The court erred, however, in granting the motion to suppress on the ground that the police did not exhaust normal investigative procedures before applying for the eavesdropping warrant. During the five month investigation preceding the application the police were unable to gather any evidence against the higher echelon of the conspiracy. There is no requirement that the police use eavesdropping only as a last resort after every other imaginable method of investigation has proved unsuccessful. The law simply requires that the police "inform the authorizing judicial officer of the nature and progress of the investigation and of the difficulties inherent in the use of normal law enforcement methods" ( People v. Versace, supra, pp 307-308, 426 N.Y.S.2d 61, quoting United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1011). The required showing must be "tested in a practical and commonsense fashion" (United States v. Lilla, 699 F.2d 99, 103; see,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fonville
...People v. Baris, 116 A.D.2d 174, 187, 500 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 1050, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 495 N.E.2d 358; People v. Carson, 99 A.D.2d 664, 472 N.Y.S.2d 68). Conclusory allegations of necessity are insufficient to support issuance of the warrant (see, People v. Bavisotto, 120 A.D......
-
People v. Russo
...993, 996), subject to certain exceptions. (People v. Blake, supra, 35 N.Y.2d 334, 335, 361 N.Y.S.2d 881, 320 N.E.2d 625; People v. Carson & Brown, 99 A.D.2d 664 case 53, 472 N.Y.S.2d 68; People v. Loizides, 123 Misc.2d 334, 473 N.Y.S.2d 916, 921; People v. Brensic, supra, 118 Misc.2d 391, 4......
-
Cherry v. Koch
...decision resulted from an ex parte application (People v. Guerra, 65 N.Y.2d 60, 63, 489 N.Y.S.2d 718, 478 N.E.2d 1319; People v. Carson, 99 A.D.2d 664, 472 N.Y.S.2d 68); or where new evidence is before the Court (Holloway v. Cha Cha Laundry, etc., 97 A.D.2d 385, 386, 467 N.Y.S.2d 834; Matte......
-
People v. Wakefield Financial Corp.
...all possible steps before requesting an eavesdropping warrant and wiretapping does not have to be the last resort (People v. Carson, 99 AD2d 664 [472 N.Y.S.2d 68 (1984) ]; see United States v. Fury, 554 F2d 522, 530 n. 7, supra; People v. Versace, 73 AD2d 304, 307-308 [426 N.Y.S.2d 61 (1980......