People v. Dworkin
| Decision Date | 26 April 1972 |
| Citation | 332 N.Y.S.2d 645,283 N.E.2d 620,30 N.Y.2d 706 |
| Parties | , 283 N.E.2d 620 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark Allen DWORKIN et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
William M. Kunstler, New York City, and Everett M. Barlow, Buffalo, for appellants.
Aldo L. DiFlorio, Dist. Atty. (Shavasp Hanesian, Niagara Falls, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division 36 A.D.2d 430, 321 N.Y.S.2d 263, denying the motion to suppress should be affirmed upon the ground that defendants have failed to demonstrate that the marijuana found in their automobile during the course of a border search must be declared inadmissible as the product of an unconstitutional search.
Border searches need not be based on probable cause and customs officials are privileged to stop and examine any vehicle, person or baggage entering the United States (see, e.g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; Alexander v. United States, 9 Cir., 362 F.2d 379, cert. den. 385 U.S. 977, 87 S.Ct. 519, 17 L.Ed.2d 439; Henderson v. United States, 390 F.2d 805; United States v. Guadalupe-Garza, 9 Cir., 421 F.2d 876, 878; Deck v. United States, 9 Cir., 395 F.2d 89, 90). The mere crossing of the border is a sufficient basis for a search and, in the absence of a showing that it was unreasonable in the manner conducted, contraband seized is admissible as evidence. Consequently, once the defendants arrived at the check point, they properly came under official scrutiny and were legitimately subjected to questioning and to a search of their vehicle. It is, therefore, of no relevancy that a quantity of antidraft literature had been observed in the car prior to the search or for that matter, that the customs inspector lacked person to suspect that the defendants might be in possession of marijuana.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Luna
...unreasonable searches and seizures (see, United States v. Ramsey, supra, 431 U.S., at 616, 97 S.Ct., at 1978; People v. Dworkin, 30 N.Y.2d 706, 332 N.Y.S.2d 645, 283 N.E.2d 620). The paramount interests in national security and preventing contraband from entering the country render such rou......
-
People v. Materon
...because the violations were discovered by Federal rather than State authorities (People v. Zipkin, supra; see People v. Dworkin, 30 N.Y.2d 706, 332 N.Y.S.2d 645, 283 N.E.2d 620; People v. Mitchell, supra; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 [Fla.]; cf. People v. Marcus, 90 Misc.2d 243, 394 N.Y.S.2......
-
People v. LePera
...searches and seizures" (People v. Luna, 73 N.Y.2d 173, 176, 538 N.Y.S.2d 765, 535 N.E.2d 1305; see also, People v. Dworkin, 30 N.Y.2d 706, 332 N.Y.S.2d 645, 283 N.E.2d 620). As the United States Supreme Court pointed out in United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978, 52......
-
People v. Mitchell
...called a "border search", may be triggered by mere suspicion (United States v. Mastberg, 9 Cir., 503 F.2d 465; People v. Dworkin, 30 N.Y.2d 706, 332 N.Y.S.2d 645, 283 N.E.2d 620). The propriety of the customs search is not here in question. It is defendant's contention that the prosecution ......