People v. Fiorillo
| Decision Date | 23 June 1970 |
| Citation | 311 N.Y.S.2d 574,63 Misc.2d 480 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Paul FIORILLO, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Charles LEONETTI, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Louis GOWDIE, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Patrick LEONETTI, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Lila LEONETTI, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Leonard ROGINSKI, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Jean NOVAK, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Paul HAGE, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. John DiLORENZO, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Eavesdropping warrants upon which the above cases were based were issued by this Court upon the application of the District Attorney of Montgomery County. The District Attorney was authorized in the warrants as the law enforcement agency to intercept the communications. The defendants object to this procedure stating that the warrant should specifically name the persons authorized to execute the warrants. The statute does not require this as it would obviously be impractical, if not impossible, to effectuate any eavesdropping if the law enforcement agency were not in a position to designate trusted police employees technically trained to carry out the eavesdropping procedure, changing the personnel from day to day and time to time as the exigencies of the investigation required. In this case the moving papers were based upon a State Police investigation being made in conjunction with the district attorney's office. The designation in the warrant was clear and the ensuing eavesdropping was carried out by the district attorney through Captain Bardosi and the State Police personnel.
The defendants further complain that there are no provisions in the warrant to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to eavesdropping under this title. There is no indication whatever that any such conversations were intercepted or could have been intercepted under the circumstances established by the affidavits upon which these warrants were issued considering the location and use of the telephones described in the warrants. However, even if such were the case and some outside person not involved in the gambling conspiracy and making calls not related to the promotion of illegal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lilla
...Because "it is extremely unlikely that one telephone conversation would ... establish this conspiracy," People v. Fiorillo, 63 Misc.2d 480, 481, 311 N.Y.S.2d 574, 576 (Montgomery Co. Ct. 1970), this Court is not prepared to say that the state judge lacked probable cause to believe that addi......
-
U.S. v. Fury
...States v. Poeta, 455 F.2d 117, 122 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 2041, 32 L.Ed.2d 337 (1972); People v. Fiorillo, 63 Misc.2d 480, 481, 311 N.Y.S.2d 574 (Montgomery Cty.Ct.1970). See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171-76, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Unite......
-
People v. Losinno
...is what the majority would do here. For my part, I agree with the following views expressed by Judge Crangle in People v. Fiorillo, 63 Misc.2d 480--481, 311 N.Y.S.2d 574, 575, a case very similar to this one: 'The District Attorney was authorized in the warrants as the law enforcement agenc......