People v. Goldfarb
| Decision Date | 10 May 1962 |
| Citation | 34 Misc.2d 866,229 N.Y.S.2d 620 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. Frank GOLDFARB. |
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
Frank S. Hogan, New York City, for the People; Robert Burstein, Washington, D. C., of counsel, in opposition to the motion.
Albert Felix, New York City, for defendant, for the motion.
The defendant, indicted for felonies relating to bookmaking, moves for an order suppressing the use on the trial of certain records, papers and documents seized by the arresting officers while engaged in an unlawful search of his home.
The facts which gave rise to the alleged unlawful search and seizure are as follows: In the morning of August 16, 1961, Police Officer Henschel received confidential information that a bookmaker was taking bets on telephone number BR 9-8489. In seeking to place a bet over this phone, the officer failed to give the proper code words and was told he had the wrong number. When he hung up his coin was returned. Because of this the special investigator of the telephone company was alerted and he conducted an investigation. It was discovered that the telephone number, BR 9-8489, was connected improperly and unauthorizedly to LW 4-0765, both located in an apartment at 403 West Fortieth Street. This latter phone was in turn connected with a third telephone, TR 7-2826, traced to apartment two at No. 60 West Eighty-second Street.
Observing the action of the phones, it was learned that BR 9-8489, which was receiving an inordinate number of calls in a very short space of time, was connected to LW 4-0765 by a 'cheesebox' device so that the incoming calls on BR 9-8489 were immediately switched over to LW 4-0765 and in turn relayed to TR 7-2826.
It was also learned that upon completing the conversation from a coin box phone booth to BR 9-8489, upon hanging up the receiver, the coins deposited in the phone coin receptacle would be returned.
The police, in company of the special agent of the telephone company, proceeded to Eighty-first Street and Central Park West which was in the immediate neighborhood of the apartment building located at No. 60 West Eighty-second Street. From a nearby phone booth Police Officer Henschel dialed BR 9-8489, used the appropriate code words, and placed a bet on a horse. Upon completing his call his coin was returned. All then proceed to apartment 2 of No. 60 West Eighty-second Street. While standing outside the door, Police Officer Henschel overheard the defendant say certain things which he interpreted as the acceptance of bets on baseball games. Thereupon one of the group, a Police Deputy Inspector, rapped sharply on the door and said 'open up'. There being no response for several seconds, the police pushed in the door and entered the apartment. Inside the door and seated at a table, on which were many slips of paper, was the defendant wearing a telephone headset connected to TR 7-2826. Among the slips of papers which were seized by the arresting officers was the bet on the horse which Police Officer Henschel had phoned in from a nearby telephone booth, and also slips showing bets on the baseball games which Henschel had overheard while standing outside the door. Upon listening in on the headset which was still connected to TR 7-2826, the police heard persons calling in, seeking to place bets.
Accepting as truthful the testimony of the police officers and the special agent of the telephone company, it would seem that there was probable cause for the police to make an arrest of the defendant . The court recognizes that under the circumstances here disclosed, time being of the essence, the police were precluded from obtaining a search warrant prior to breaking into the apartment. However, the defendant urges that even though probable cause may exist...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Warden of Rikers Island Penitentiary
......822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). Although traditionally the writ of error coram nobis is applicable only to errors not on the record, see People v. Sadness, 300 N.Y. 69, 73-74, 89 N.E.2d 188 (1949), it has been expanded by the New York courts when the interests of justice require. See People ...Thus it appears that the judicially created exceptions would not be applicable, see People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. County Ct. 1962) (sharp rapping on the door followed by the words "open up" held insufficient to satisfy New ......
-
People v. Floyd
...... From this statutory scheme, it follows that an arrest made after breaking into a room or building without the police officer first giving notice of his authority and purpose is an unlawful arrest. (People v. Griffin, 22 . Page 955. A.D.2d 957, 256 N.Y.S.2d 115; People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 869, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620; also see People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 392--394, 280 N.Y.S.2d 356, 359--361, 227 N.E.2d 284, 386--387.) It has also been so held under a similar federal statute in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 308--309, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332, supra. In ......
-
United States v. Sims, Crim. No. 26448.
......Case, 4 Conn. 166, or that the person to be arrested is fleeing or attempting to destroy evidence. People v. Maddox, 46 Cal.2d 301, 294 P.2d 6." In the case at bar, the government seizes on this language, the cases cited to support it and other ...798, 802 (1924); Hinton v. Sims, 171 Miss. 741, 158 So. 141, 778 (1934); Gurley v. Tucker, 170 Miss. 565, 155 So. 189 (1934); People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620 (1962). 3 Not without significance also is the decision in Stoner v. State of California, supra. ......
- Schor v. Domery