People v. Edelstein

• Decision Date: 24 November 1981
• Citation: 445 N.Y.S.2d 125,429 N.E.2d 803,54 N.Y.2d 306
• Parties: , 429 N.E.2d 803 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert EDELSTEIN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 125

445 N.Y.S.2d 125

54 N.Y.2d 306, 429 N.E.2d 803

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert EDELSTEIN, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 24, 1981.

Roger Bennet Adler and Deborah A. Schwartz, New York City, for appellant

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Amyjane Rettew and Robert M. Pitler, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GABRIELLI, Judge.

Defendant was charged with three counts of bribery in the second degree (Penal Law, § 200.00) and one count of conspiracy in the third degree (Penal Law, § 105.05) by an indictment which alleged, among other things, that the defendant conspired with one Harry Shapiro to bribe Abram Brown, a law assistant employed by Supreme Court, New York County, and that he had bribed Brown to secure judicial decisions favorable to defendant's interest in two cases. By motion, defendant sought to suppress certain intercepted conversations obtained by wiretaps placed on Abram Brown's personal and business phones. Following the denial of this motion, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the indictment and the Appellate Division thereafter affirmed the convictions, 78 A.D.2d 797, 435 N.Y.S.2d 424, Sup.Ct., 415 N.Y.S.2d 366, without opinion.

Defendant now asserts several challenges to the admissibility of the wiretap evidence, including the alleged failure of the People to minimize (CPL 700.30, subd. 7) and their failure to seal the tapes immediately upon the expiration of the period of the eavesdropping warrant (CPL 700.50, subd. 2). ^* Raised in connection with each of these challenges is the question of defendant's standing to contest the admissibility of conversations in which he took no part. In regard to the minimization requirement, we conclude that defendant has no standing to challenge the interception of third-party conversations. The minimization requirement is rooted in the Fourth Amendment's ban upon unreasonable searches and seizures, and defendant has no standing to assert the Fourth Amendment rights of another (see Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387). Without standing to assert the failure of the police to minimize in regard to third-party conversations, defendant's remaining minimization arguments are wholly without merit. In contrast, we conclude that defendant does have standing to challenge the failure of the People to seal the tapes in accordance with the dictates of the statute (CPL 700.50, subd. 2). The sealing requirement is designed, among other things, "to prevent tampering, alterations or editing" (People v. Nicoletti, 34 N.Y.2d 249, 253, 356 N.Y.S.2d 855, 313 N.E.2d 336). Since this requirement goes to the very integrity of the tapes, rather than to the intrusion created by the wiretap, it has been held that a defendant does have standing to challenge the failure of the People to seal tapes properly, even though the tapes contain only the conversations of third parties (People v. Trevorah, 63 A.D.2d 662, 404 N.Y.S.2d 392, affd. 48 N.Y.2d 988, 425 N.Y.S.2d 543, 401 N.E.2d 901).

In the present case, however, although defendant has standing to challenge the allegedly untimely sealing of the tapes, we nevertheless conclude that the defendant's motion to suppress the tapes was properly denied. While the requirement of immediate sealing must be strictly construed, the eavesdropping statute also mandates that the courts consider whether the People have offered a satisfactory explanation for any delay which might have occurred (People v. Washington, 46 N.Y.2d 116, 123-124, 412 N.Y.S.2d 854, 385 N.E.2d 593...