People v. Haas
| Decision Date | 27 December 1976 |
| Citation | 55 A.D.2d 683,390 N.Y.S.2d 202 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Warren E. HAAS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John L. Evans, Islip Terrace, for appellant.
Henry F. O'Brien, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Mark D. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
Before MARTUSCELLO, Acting P.J., and LATHAM, HAWKINS and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered October 7, 1974, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence.
Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, and new trial ordered.
As the People concede, there was no probable cause for the issuance of a warrant which included the authorization to search for stolen goods. By applying the doctrine of severance, we find that the search warrant was valid insofar as it authorized the search for marijuana (see People v. Hansen, 38 N.Y.2d 17, 377 N.Y.S.2d 461, 339 N.E.2d 873). However, we cannot agree that the subsequent seizure of the stolen property can be justified by means of the 'plain view' doctrine. The items seized, i.e., a passport, an envelope containing coins, certain documents, etc., are not the type of items in which a searcher for marijuana could reasonably expect to find marijuana, especially in view of the fact that the search warrant authorized a search for 'Marijuana Plants' (cf. United States v. White, D.C.D.C., 122 F.Supp. 664). Furthermore, none of those items contain a brand of illegality, i.e., they are not contraband per se. Thus, the police would have had to scrutinize them carefully in order to know that they were stolen (see Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (concurring opinion of Stewart, J.); Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 280 N.E.2d 665 (Mass., 1972)). We find that this type of foray into defendant's home pursuant to an imprecisely drawn search warrant is precisely the type of general exploratory search so abhorrent to the Constitution (see Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 462, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 reh. den. 404 U.S. 874, 92 S.Ct. 26, 30 L.Ed.2d 120). 'To condone what happened here is to invite a government official to use a seemingly precise and legal warrant only as a ticket to get into a man's home, and, once inside, to launch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Frank
...203 S.E.2d 558, 563.) The doctrine reflected in these cases is not, however, without its proper limitations. In People v. Haas (1976) 55 App.Div.2d 683, 390 N.Y.S.2d 202, for example, the court--after concluding that there was probable cause to support a warrant's authorization to search fo......
-
United States v. Giresi
...basis for the criminal charge. People v. Mangialino, 75 Misc.2d 698, 348 N.Y.S.2d 327, 337 (Cty.1973); accord, People v. Haas, 55 App.Div.2d 683, 390 N.Y.S.2d 202 (2d Dep't 1976); see also People v. Hansen, 38 N.Y.2d 17, 377 N.Y.S.2d 461, 465, 339 N.E.2d 873 Notwithstanding these uniform st......
-
People v. Dancey
...must first be apparent before the item can be picked up and examined (People v. Richie, 77 A.D.2d 667, 430 N.Y.S.2d 154; People v. Haas, 55 A.D.2d 683, 390 N.Y.S.2d 202). Even if we were to change our position to hold that where an officer reasonably suspects that an item in plain view may ......
-
People v. Thompson
...may have inadvertently found would not be readily apparent.The Second Department confronted a similar argument in People v. Haas, 55 A.D.2d 683, 390 N.Y.S.2d 202 (2d Dept.1976) where they found a warrant which authorized a search for marijuana did not authorize the seizure of "stolen goods"......