People v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 25 November 1981 |
| Citation | 111 Misc.2d 550,444 N.Y.S.2d 548 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Juan E. GARCIA; Anthony M. Garcia; Isidore Garcia; Raymond Newman, et ano., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Suffolk County by Raymond M. Jermyn, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Hauppage, for the people.
Lewis D. Cohen, Brooklyn, for defendant Juan Garcia.
Oddo & Canizio by Richard J. Oddo, Ozone Park, for defendant Isidore Garcia.
Hopkins & Hopkins, Mineola, for defendants Raymond Newman and Anthony Garcia.
The defendants Juan E. Garcia, Anthony M. Garcia, Isidore Garcia, Raymond Newman (and another) are charged in Indictment Number 1438-81 with multiple counts of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the First Degree and Illegal Possession of a V.I.N. Plate. The defendants are all related to each other.
The physical evidence supporting the charges was seized on May 11, 1981 and May 12, 1981 upon the execution of a search warrant which commanded a search of the premises of the Long Island Trailer Sales and Service, Inc., at 61D North Street, Manorville, for "stolen motor vehicles, stolen trailers ... illegally possessed V.I.N. tags" and books and records related thereto. Immediately prior to obtaining the search warrant Detective Robert Gately and his partner, a Detective Pearsall, had conducted a limited warrantless inspection of the Long Island Trailer premises allegedly in the company of and with the consent of Joseph Garcia.
Defendants Juan E. Garcia, Anthony M. Garcia, Isidore Garcia and Raymond Newman move to suppress the evidence noted or obtained during that inspection and any evidence thereafter seized upon the grounds that the inspection constituted an illegal and unreasonable search and therefor information derived therefrom may not support the subsequent application for a search warrant. It is further alleged that any evidence obtained upon the execution of the search warrant was the "poisoned fruit" of that prior illegal warrantless search.
Further challenges are directed to the accuracy and sufficiency of the application for the search warrant.
Juan Garcia also moves to dismiss the charges as against him upon the ground that there was no probable cause to arrest him.
The District Attorney contended at the hearing that the defendants do not possess the requisite standing to challenge the aforementioned inspection and subsequent search and that, in any event, the limited warrantless inspection was with the consent of Joseph Garcia and formed a sufficient predicate for the application for the warrant.
A hearing was held with respect to the controlling events and the court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On or about May 9, 1981 the police received a telephone call from an unidentified man who said he was a trucker whose trailer had been stolen. From information gathered via the "grapevine" he went to and saw his trailer on the premises of a company known as Long Island Trailer Sales and Service on North Street in Manorville and effected its return to him after he threatened to call the police.
Two days later, on May 11, 1981, during regular business hours, Detectives Gately and Pearsall of the Suffolk County Auto Theft Squad, energized by the foregoing information, visited those premises.
When they arrived at the location they saw an open lot with dimensions of about 200' by 200' enclosed by a chain link fence and fronted in part by a building which served as an office and garage. Within the property they could see trailers, some of which were cut up with parts strewn about the premises.
Access to the yard itself was available only through a door located in the rear of that building.
Detectives Gately and Pearsall entered the Long Island Trailer offices and after identifying themselves advised Joseph Garcia that they wished to speak with the owner and inspect the business' dismantlers license and books. Mr. Garcia told the police that he was the manager and that the owner, one Raymond Raimondi, was in Florida and had the books with him. Upon a request, Joseph Garcia further advised that Raimondi had made application for a dismantlers license and that it had not yet been issued.
Subsequent investigation disclosed that Raimondi was an alias used by Joseph Garcia and that no such application had been filed.
At this time defendant Isidore Garcia was in the front parking lot and defendants Raymond Newman and Anthony Garcia were working on the premises.
The detectives then asked for permission to inspect the rear yard. A factual dispute as to whether such consent was granted was the subject of testimony by several witnesses.
I find that Joseph Garcia, purporting to be the manager of the business and apparently the person legally capable of doing so, consented to the inspection and accompanied the detectives.
During the course of the inspection, Detective Pearsall noted the presence of an abundance of trailer parts and a number of tractor trailers in various stages of repair. They observed that vehicle identification tags had been removed from some of these vehicles and in particular Detective Pearsall noted that an altered V.I.N. tag was affixed to a "Clark" trailer. The police concluded that this was probably a "chop shop" which received and then stripped or otherwise altered the physical features of stolen trailers. They ascertained the true V.I.N. number from the body of the "Clark" trailer and the detectives immediately attempted to check the number with the central computer. The computer was out of service at that time and the detectives left the premises.
On the afternoon of May 11, Detective Gately was able to determine that the altered V.I.N. tag was affixed to a trailer that had been reported stolen in New Jersey that very day.
Upon receipt of this information and because of it, Detectives Gately and Pearsall returned to Long Island Trailer to speak to someone. They were advised by one Billie Jo Koch, the secretary, that everyone had left. When asked to contact Joseph Garcia, Ms. Koch stated that she didn't know where he was and that she could not contact him.
A search warrant was obtained and executed at the Long Island Trailer premises on the evening of May 11, 1981 and continued through May 12, 1981, resulting in the identification of four allegedly stolen trailers and two V.I.N. plates not affixed by the manufacturer or in accordance with law.
As a result the named defendants were arrested and indicted. Joseph Garcia cannot now be located.
Defendant Juan E. Garcia was not present at the Long Island Trailer premises on either May 11 or May 12 and his first contact with the police did not occur until June 5, 1981 at which time he was arrested pursuant to a warrant. His arrest stemmed from an inspection of the books and financial records of the company which revealed that on occasions he signed checks and paid the rent on its behalf.
The threshold question is whether Detectives Pearsall and Gately needed the consent of Joseph Garcia to conduct their warrantless inspection of the premises and if needed whether such consent was freely given.
It is axiomatic that the Fourth Amendment protects commercial establishments as well as private homes from unreasonable searches unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant based upon probable cause (See Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930) or unless some recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies (See, See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943).
Such an exception to the warrant requirement has been recognized for "pervasively regulated" businesses (United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87; Marshall v. Barlow's, 436 U.S. 307, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 56 L.Ed.2d 305) and for "closely regulated" businesses "long subject to close supervision and inspection" (Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60).
In this regard certain industries such as liquor (Colonnade) and firearms (Biswell ) have such a history of governmental regulation that no owner thereof could have an expectation of privacy over the stock of his business (See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576). Indeed, "when an entrepreneur embarks upon such a business, he has voluntarily chosen to subject himself to the full arsenal of governmental regulation" (Marshall v. Barlow's, supra).
In the instant case, it is equally clear that not only does the state have a legitimate interest in supervising a vehicle dismantlers business but by the enactment of Section 415-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the amendments thereto the state has unequivocally indicated that it considers such business to be within the class of "pervasively regulated" industries (People v. Tinneny, 99 Misc.2d 962, 417 N.Y.S.2d 840; People v. Sylvester, Cf. Misc., N.Y.L.J. 11/20/80 at p. 6, col. 4).
As originally enacted, subdivision 5 of Section 415-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law entitled "Vehicle dismantlers and other persons engaged in the transfer or disposal of junk and salvage vehicles" provided for registration and the maintenance of a record of all motor vehicles, trailers, or major component parts thereof, coming into his possession together with a record of the disposition of any such motor vehicle, trailer or parts thereof. It further provided that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pace
...of these industries are valid (People v. Ruggieri, 85 Misc.2d 141, 379 N.Y.S.2d 333; People v. Tinneny, supra; People v. Garcia, 111 Misc.2d 550, 444 N.Y.S.2d 548; People v. Camme, supra; People v. Lopez, 116 Cal.App.3d 600, 172 Cal.Rptr. 236; People v. Woolsey, 90 Cal.App.3d 994, 153 Cal.R......
-
People v. Smith
...Donovan v. Dewey, supra; United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 316, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 1596, 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972); People v. Garcia, 111 Misc.2d 550, 444 N.Y.S.2d 548. Absent any statutory guidelines to regulate these warrantless entries, the Fourth Amendment and its various restrictive rules......
-
People v. Camme
...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......
-
People v. Robles
...Misc.2d 488, 444 N.Y.S.2d 529, rvsd. on other grounds 101 App.Div.2d 336, 475 N.Y.S.2d 443, auto wrecking and salvage; People v. Garcia, 111 Misc.2d 550, 444 N.Y.S.2d 548, The People also argue, that second-hand auto dealers are engaged in a pervasively regulated business because the auto i......