People v. Langella

Citation41 Misc.2d 65,244 N.Y.S.2d 802
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Jerry LANGELLA, Defendant.
Decision Date13 November 1963
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

Maurice Edelbaum, New York City, by Philip R. Edelbaum, New York City, of counsel, for defendant for the motion.

Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., Kings County (Morton J. Levine, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), opposed.

J. IRWIN SHAPIRO, Justice.

Motion by the defendant 'to suppress the evidence, or in the alternative, for a hearing to suppress the evidence as illegally obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure on July 31, 1963, without a search warrant and without probable cause'.

The purpose of this suppression motion is to forestall the use in evidence of a handgun, for the unlawful possession of which this defendant has been indicted (7 felony counts). It was discovered in and taken from the locked trunk of a car theretofore operated by the defendant, in the course of a search by a parole officer (and local police officers who were summoned to assist him). It was conducted after execution of a warrant for defendant's arrest as a parole violator.

The question to be determined is whether, in view of defendant's position as a parolee, the search, without a search warrant, was unreasonable under the circumstances in which it occurred.

After argument of the motion, a hearing was ordered and the facts adduced thereat are as follows.

Prior to this defendant's release from Clinton Prison on parole, he had been serving an indeterminate term (not less than one nor more than two years) under a sentence handed down January 10, 1962 upon his conviction of Attempted Robbery, Second Degree, in the County Court of Kings County. On February 11, 1963 he 'agreed to lead an honest and upright life and abide by the rules' embodied in a parole agreement signed by him and on February 13, 1963 he was let out on parole and placed under the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole until January 12, 1964 when his maximum term would expire in due course. Thereafter he was either put or eventually came under the supervision of parole officer William J. Quinn who, on or about July 24, 1963, participated with his official supervisors in a case conference during which he gave them 'certain information' about the defendant. The nature of the intelligence thus reported does not appear but at least its significance to the participants is suggested by the result, for officer Quinn was instructed to get a warrant and execute it if and when he found the defendant violating his parole.

Through his obedience to that direction the officer was later armed with a warrant for Langella's arrest when he had him under surveillance, in Manhattan, on July 31, 1963. At an unspecified hour of that day, the officer observed defendant get behind the wheel of a car in which he had been a passenger and, apparently with the consent of its erstwhile operator--who walked off, leaving Langella alone in the vehicle--drive it from Manhattan to Cropsey Avenue, Brooklyn, parking it outside a house which he entered and which, as it later turned out, was the home of his parents.

The officer then advised his supervisor by telephone of what he had seen and was instructed to execute the warrant. 1 Before doing so he asked and received the assistance of local police officers in whose company he returned to the premises, where one of the officers rang the bell and asked for the defendant, to whom officer Quinn identified himself and Langella was then questioned about the parked car. The setting in which the questioning occurred is not disclosed and neither is it shown what answers, if any, were given by defendant but at any rate, officer Quinn told Langella that he was being taken into custody as a parole violator, and showed him the warrant for his arrest. When the parties were in the street, defendant was asked for the key to the car. He said that it was in the house. He was brought back into the house by the parole officer, at whose direction he retrieved the key from a living room sofa on which he had been seated when the officers entered. Then, with a detective at the wheel and with the others, including defendant, as passengers, the car was driven to a local station house where the prisoner was subjected to a short period of questioning. Whether anything of substance was brought out in the process, does not appear. Be that as it may, Langella was then brought out to the car and, in his presence, the parole officer used the key to unlock the trunk. An inspection (search) of the trunk disclosed the weapon on which the present charges are based.

In the determination of this motion I am, of course, concerned only with the legality of the search and seizure and not with the problem of proof of the substantive charges contained in the indictment (See, People v. Spillman, 309 N.Y. 295, 130 N.E.2d 625; Penal Law, § 1899, subd. 3 and former section 1898-a).

In their treatment of the issue opposing counsel depend, mainly, on their different views of the proper scope of a search as an incident of a lawful arrest. I prefer to rest this decision on the broader ground that applicable and controlling law expressing and implementing a sound public policy subordinates the parolee's rights to the reasonable exercise of the parole board's powers of supervision and investigation. Through the exercise of those powers the purposes of parole are advanced either by the parole board's persuasion that the parolee is responding to the effort to rehabilitate him, thereby confirming its original judgment that 'if such prisoner is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society' (Correction Law, § 213), or by its conviction that there is reasonable cause to believe that he 'has lapsed, or is probably about to lapse, into criminal ways or company, or has violated the conditions of his parole in an important respect' and that appropriate action to bring about his reinstitutionalization ought to be taken (Correction Law, § 216). I hold that, on the facts developed by the proof in this case, the action taken by the parole officer was legally justified and that the defendant cannot, consequently, sustain his claim that the search and seizure were unreasonable. Within the spirit and intendment of the law, it seems plain that the test of reasonableness is not necessarily the same, when applied to a parolee, as when applied to a person whose rights are not similarly circumscribed and there is hardly any doubt that, within the constitutional framework, the parolee's rights may be and are properly conditioned and limited (See e. g., People v. Triche, 148 Cal.App.2d 198, 306 P.2d 616, 618-619; People v. Denne, Cal.App., 297 P.2d 451, 456-458).

A convict has no constitutional right to be released on parole. Just as commutation may be granted by the state executive 'upon such conditions, and with such restrictions and limitations, as he may think proper' (N. Y. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 4; Code Crim.Proc. § 692) so, too, the Board of Parole is given Power to determine what eligible prisoners may be released on parole 'and when and under what conditions' (Correction Law, § 210). Just as pardon and conditional commutation are not granted as matters of right but as acts of grace (Roberts v. State, 160 N.Y. 217, 222, 54 N.E. 678, 679; People ex rel. Atkins v. Jennings, 248 N.Y. 46, 51, 161 N.E. 326, 328) so, too, '(p)arole is not a right, but a privilege, to be granted or withheld as discretion may impel' (People ex rel. Cecere v. Jennings, 250 N.Y. 239, 241, 165 N.E. 277, 278).

Apart from the explicit conditions of parole (Correction Law, § 215), the parolee must know that the division of parole is charged with the duty of supervising him 'and of making such investigations as may be necessary in connection therewith, of determining whether violation of parole conditions exists * * * and of deciding the action to be taken with reference thereto' (Correction Law, § 210). Common sense dictates that parole officers charged with these duties must have the powers reasonably necessary to their adequate performance, and the parolee is chargeable with knowing that his rights, while at liberty on parole,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Ralph Martinez, In re
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 1970
    ...18 L.Ed.2d 930) are subject to the broad reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. (See, e.g., People v. Langella (Sup.Ct. 1963) 41 Misc.2d 65, 244 N.Y.S.2d 802, 805; Martin v. United States (4th Cir. 1950) 183 F.2d 436, 439, cert. den. 340 U.S. 904, 71 S.Ct. 280, 95 L.Ed. 654; cf......
  • People v. Santos, GT-D
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 15 Mayo 1975
    ...that they may take appropriate action to bring about the parolee's reinstitutionalization (Correction Law § 216; People v. Langella, 41 Misc.2d 65, 68, 244 N.Y.S.2d 802). Looking now at the Santos investigation, DeFilippis cannot be faulted for having initiated his investigation upon the re......
  • People v. Gilkey
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 31 Marzo 1970
    ...18 L.Ed.2d 930) are subject to the broad reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. (See, e.g., People v. Langella (Sup.Ct.1963) 41 Misc.2d 65, 244 N.Y.S.2d 802, 805; Martin v. United States (4th Cir. 1950) 183 F.2d 436, 439, cert. den. 340 U.S. 904, 71 S.Ct. 280, 95 L.Ed. 654; cf.......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 Noviembre 1972
    ...369; People v. Sickler, 61 Misc.2d 571, 306 N.Y.S.2d 168; People v. Chinnici, 51 Misc.2d 570, 273 N.Y.S.2d 538; People v. Langella, 41 Misc.2d 65, 244 N.Y.S.2d 802; People v. Santos, 25 N.Y.2d 976, 305 N.Y.S.2d 365, 252 N.E.2d 861; People v. Randazzo, 15 N.Y.2d 526, 254 N.Y.S.2d 99, 202 N.E......
  • 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