People v. Johnson

CourtNew York Court of General Sessions
Writing for the CourtMITCHELL D. SCHWEITZER
Citation231 N.Y.S.2d 689
PartiesPEOPLE v. Joseph JOHNSON.
Decision Date03 August 1962

Page 689

231 N.Y.S.2d 689
PEOPLE

v.
Joseph JOHNSON.
Court of General Sessions, New York County.
Aug. 3, 1962.

Page 690

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., by Edward M. Davidowitz, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.

William G. Wall, New York City, for defendant.

MITCHELL D. SCHWEITZER, Judge.

This is a motion to suppress certain evidence obtained through a search warrant on the ground that said evidence was illegally seized . A search warrant was issued by this court on April 4, 1962, for the purpose of making a search of Apartment 5D, of premises 304 West 144th St., New York County, N. Y., occupied by the defendant, the object of the search being narcotics. The warrant permitted the search to be made in the daytime or in the night time.

The defendant alleges that the officers executed the warrant when no one was present in the apartment, and upon his return, he was apprehended, by the officers who were in the apartment, and searched, and that nothing was found on his person. The police have filed a return to the search warrant which lists the inventory of the property found in the apartment, and the narcotics found therein constitute the corpus delicti of the crimes charged.

The defendant does not attack the validity of the issuance of the search warrant or the return of the warrant and inventory of the court. He claims, however, that his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated because the police entered his apartment when no one was present and that they had no warrant for his arrest. He claims that the failure of the police to observe the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, section 799, in that they did not announce their authority and purpose prior to breaking into the premises, invalidated the subsequent search, seizure and arrest.

Section 799 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: 'Officer may break open door or window, to execute warrant. The officer may break open an outer or inner door or window of a building, or any part of the building, or any thing therein, to execute the warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose he be refused admittance.'

It certainly requires no further comment then to state that the Felony Court complaint must contain sufficient facts to show that the defendant has committed an act or acts in violation of the Penal Law. There is no requirement, however, that the officer executing the search warrant state the means...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Nolan, No. 82-5263
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 30 Septiembre 1983
    ...46 L.Ed.2d 263 (1975); Jones v. State, 4 Ala.App. 159, 58 So. 1011 (1912) (interpreting parallel Alabama statute); People v. Johnson, 231 N.Y.S.2d 689 (Ct.Gen.Sess.1962) (interpreting parallel New York statute); Collins v. State, 184 Tenn. 356, 199 S.W.2d 96 (1947) (interpreting parallel Te......
  • State v. Iverson, No. 14402
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 27 Febrero 1985
    ...notice of authority and purpose required by the statute presupposes the presence of a human being in the premises. People v. Johnson, 231 N.Y.S.2d 689 (N.Y.Gen.Sess.1962) aff'd 19 A.D.2d 946, 245 N.Y.S.2d 311 The warrant was executed as soon after issuance as possible. The officers did not ......
  • State v. Farber, No. 65301
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 20 Enero 1982
    ...of authority and purpose required by the statute presupposes the presence of a human being in the premises." People v. Johnson, 231 N.Y.S.2d 689, 691 (N.Y.Gen.Sess.1962), aff'd, 19 A.D.2d 946, 245 N.Y.S.2d 311 (1963). The New York statute does not require the officers before entering t......
  • State v. Gutierrez, No. 3016
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 7 Marzo 1978
    ...230 (1931); Collins v. State, 184 Tenn. 356, 199 S.W.2d 96 (1947); Goodman v. State, 178 Md. 1, 11 A.2d 635 (1940); People v. Johnson, 231 N.Y.S.2d 689 (Misc.1962); People v. Law, 55 Misc.2d 1075, 287 N.Y.S.2d 565 (1968); Hart v. Superior Court, County of San Mateo, 21 Cal.App.3d Page 448 [......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • U.S. v. Nolan, No. 82-5263
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 30 Septiembre 1983
    ...46 L.Ed.2d 263 (1975); Jones v. State, 4 Ala.App. 159, 58 So. 1011 (1912) (interpreting parallel Alabama statute); People v. Johnson, 231 N.Y.S.2d 689 (Ct.Gen.Sess.1962) (interpreting parallel New York statute); Collins v. State, 184 Tenn. 356, 199 S.W.2d 96 (1947) (interpreting parallel Te......
  • State v. Iverson, No. 14402
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 27 Febrero 1985
    ...notice of authority and purpose required by the statute presupposes the presence of a human being in the premises. People v. Johnson, 231 N.Y.S.2d 689 (N.Y.Gen.Sess.1962) aff'd 19 A.D.2d 946, 245 N.Y.S.2d 311 The warrant was executed as soon after issuance as possible. The officers did not ......
  • State v. Farber, No. 65301
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 20 Enero 1982
    ...of authority and purpose required by the statute presupposes the presence of a human being in the premises." People v. Johnson, 231 N.Y.S.2d 689, 691 (N.Y.Gen.Sess.1962), aff'd, 19 A.D.2d 946, 245 N.Y.S.2d 311 (1963). The New York statute does not require the officers before entering t......
  • State v. Gutierrez, No. 3016
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 7 Marzo 1978
    ...230 (1931); Collins v. State, 184 Tenn. 356, 199 S.W.2d 96 (1947); Goodman v. State, 178 Md. 1, 11 A.2d 635 (1940); People v. Johnson, 231 N.Y.S.2d 689 (Misc.1962); People v. Law, 55 Misc.2d 1075, 287 N.Y.S.2d 565 (1968); Hart v. Superior Court, County of San Mateo, 21 Cal.App.3d Page 448 [......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT