People v. Leto, J-6
| Decision Date | 01 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | J-6 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Joseph LETO |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The following constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the court on a Mapp suppression hearing, following a motion made by defendant.
An indictment has been filed against defendant accusing him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, forgery of a vehicle identification number and violation of section 415-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Defendant, claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, has made a motion for an order to suppress various automobile parts set forth in People's Exhibit 1 in evidence seized by the police from the premises of A.L. Reliable Used Auto Parts at 97-15 Sutphin Boulevard in Queens County, as well as "observations made by the police inside of his business premises during the search".
The People assert that this seizure was incidental to a lawful arrest which was made on April 27, 1983 by Police Officer John Salzo at that location following a lawful routine inspection pursuant to section 415-a, subdivision 5 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and section 436 of the New York City Charter. Defendant maintains that these statutes are unconstitutional 1 and that the manner in which the inspection was made was in violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and that, in any event, there was no justification for seizing any property without a search warrant.
A pretrial suppression hearing was conducted before the court.
Subdivision 5 of section 415-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law reads as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
On April 27, 1983, at about 11:45 A.M. during regular business hours and while A.L. Reliable Used Auto Parts was open for business, Police Officer John Salzo, assigned to the Auto Crime Division of the Organized Crime Control Bureau, went to its premises at 97-15 Sutphin Boulevard in Queens County. He was accompanied by Sergeant Michael Byrne, his immediate supervisor and two other police officers.
While members of the Auto Crime Division do arrest people for violations of the Penal Law, a principal function of that division is to perform inspections. In accordance with that function, these police officers went to this location at that date and time for the purpose of performing a routine vehicle dismantler's inspection at those premises which had a sign on the outside stating "A.L. Reliable Used Auto Parts". They constituted a team which was assigned to inspect facilities such as that of A.L. Reliable Used Auto Parts, which were involved in the resale of vehicle parts, salvage yards and the dismantling of automobiles in accordance with section 436 of the City Charter, as well as in accordance with section 415-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. They had no warrant of any kind authorizing this inspection and appeared at these premises without giving any prior notice or checking with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles or the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs to find out whether A.L. Reliable Used Auto Parts was licensed or had recently been inspected.
These premises of A.L. Reliable Used Auto Parts consisted of a brick building with yards on each side of it, enclosed within chain link fences about eight to ten feet high. When these police officers appeared at the premises at that time they found that the doors to the premises were open, with defendant standing behind a counter. From outside the premises one could see vehicles within the premises that were partially dismantled. One of these vehicles was a 1971 Chevy. While these police officers were there, a male black came into the premises to purchase two tires from defendant. Police Officer Salzo informed defendant that the police were there to conduct an inspection. The police showed their badges and the applicable regulations to defendant. The latter stated that he was the general manager and was in charge. He said he had no objection to the police officers performing the inspection. He showed the police officers his certificate of fitness for acetylene torches and his license as a secondhand dealer in auto parts, as a secondhand dealer in vehicles, as a junk shop and as a vehicle dismantler. The registration number on the vehicle dismantler's license was not displayed.
After inspecting the licenses, Police Officer Salzo went into the yard in order to perform the physical inspection. He did this by conducting a random sampling of the parts in the yard and comparing them with entries in the police book kept in the premises, which book he examined. A police book is a book in which junk yards are required, by law, to put the information as to where a vehicle came from and where the component parts were sold or otherwise disposed of.
Upon making this comparison, Police Officer Salzo found that certain parts he had taken for sampling did not appear in the police book. Out of about 2,000 parts in the yard, Police Officer Salzo listed about 10 or 15 parts in his random sampling. He noted vehicle identification numbers (VIN numbers) from certain parts which he had looked at. He then telephoned his office and advised them of these numbers in order to find out if there was an alarm on a particular vehicle number. He received information that there was an active alarm on a certain vehicle identification number which he had called in. When he received this information, he was still comparing the random sampling to the police book which defendant had given him and found that certain parts were not listed in the police book. Police Officer Salzo informed defendant that there was an active alarm on certain Cadillac parts in the premises and that defendant was being arrested for criminal possession of stolen property. By an "alarm" is meant that the vehicle bearing a particular VIN number had been reported stolen to the police.
Police Officer Salzo and his colleagues moved various parts that were being seized, so that these parts could be picked up and vouchered. These parts were in fact seized and vouchered under vouchers marked People's Exhibit 1 in evidence.
About three weeks prior to April 27, 1983, these premises had been inspected by a person from the Department of Motor Vehicles who had given defendant certain procedural instructions. However, this inspection was unknown to Police Officer Salzo until he saw a note in the police book indicating that the Department of Motor Vehicles had previously made an inspection. About one week prior to April 27, 1983, Police Officer Milau had appeared in the premises in connection with the investigation of a particular car and not for the purpose of making an inspection and Police Officer Milau did not on that occasion make any inspection.
Defendant had a previous felony conviction and a previous misdemeanor conviction.
In accordance with the authority granted by section 415-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the police, in order to make a routine administrative inspection, entered the premises of A.L. Reliable Used Auto Parts, which was engaged in business as a vehicle dismantler. The police entered such premises without a warrant, thus presenting the question of the constitutionality of this routine administrative inspection.
While such warrantless inspections are generally prohibited, they have been upheld in certain situations. Thus, warrantless administrative inspections have been upheld with respect to businesses dealing with liquor (United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87) and with firearms (Colonnade Caterers, Inc. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60).
While it is true that these cases do not involve vehicle dismantlers, the list of industries where warrantless administrative inspections are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Keta
...v. Cusumano, 108 A.D.2d 752, supra, at 753, 484 N.Y.S.2d 909; People v. Tinneny, 145 Misc.2d 737, 547 N.Y.S.2d 799; People v. Leto, 124 Misc.2d 549, 478 N.Y.S.2d 765; People v. Camme, 112 Misc.2d 792, 794-795, 447 N.Y.S.2d 621; People v. Pace, 101 A.D.2d 336, 343-344, 475 N.Y.S.2d 443, supr......
-
State v. Zinmeister
...by and prefer to follow the majority of jurisdictions which have held such respective statutes constitutional. See People v. Leto (1984), 124 Misc.2d 549, 478 N.Y.Supp.2d 765; People v. Camme (1982), 112 Misc.2d 792, 447 N.Y.Supp.2d 621; People v. Easley (1979), 90 Cal.App.3d 440, 153 Cal.R......