People v. Manzi
| Citation | 21 A.D.2d 57,248 N.Y.S.2d 306 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael MANZI, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Miguel EMERIC, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clement DELVITT, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel ESPINET, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gilbert VALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1964 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Irving Levine, New York City, of counsel (Levine & Cowen, New York City, attorneys), for defendants-appellants.
Alan Frederick Leibowitz, New York City, of counsel (H. Richard Uviller, New York City, with him on the brief; Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty.), for respondent.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, VALENTE, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.
The question is whether the police conducted an illegal search and seizure when they took articles to a police station obtained by them from a parked station wagon. They had just witnessed the smashing of its door window and the evident attempted theft of the articles. Defendants consist of the owner of the station wagon and his companions. They had participated in a previous larceny of some of the articles and then had placed them in the station wagon, before the second group of thieves came upon the scene.
Defendants appeal from judgments convicting each of them, after pleas of guilty, of petit larceny (Penal Law §§ 1298, 1299). Their appeals bring up for review the previous denial, after hearing, of their motions to suppress the evidentiary use of the alleged fruits of the larceny on the ground that they were obtained by the police pursuant to an illegal search and seizure (Code of Criminal Procedure § 813-c).
Since the police were privileged to remove the articles from the vehicle, now unsecured, in order to safeguard them both for the owner and for use as evidence against the would-be thieves, there was no illegal search and seizure.
Since about 9:15 P.M., on the night in question, three detectives had been following three men, who, suspiciously, were inspecting parked automobiles. At about 10 P.M., at 46th Street and Vanderbilt Avenue in Manhattan, one of the men stopped by a two-door Ford station wagon, looked in, and then stepped back and kicked in the door window, leaned over the back of the seat, and started to explore the property in the interior.
The three men were apprehended immediately and placed under arrest.* The detectives examined the interior of the vehicle and found, in back of the seat partially covered by a blanket, two brass stands with plastic wheels, a case of liquor, two portable television sets, and miscellaneous canned foods. These articles were removed. A uniformed policeman was left by the automobile and instructed to tell the owner to call for his property at the police station.
The detective who testified stated the property was taken to safeguard it, to use as evidence against the three men who were charged with attempted grand larceny, and to ensure that the owner would be available as complainant in court the next day. He said he could not be sure the uniformed officer would be able to remain with the automobile under all circumstances.
At the station, the witness learned from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles that Delvitt owned the car. He telephoned Delvitt's wife who said she did not know where he was. Then, under the lights of the police station, the witness noticed markings on the liquor bottles which made him conclude that they came from one of the many hotels in the area where the automobile was parked.
Delvitt arrived at the police station at about 4 A.M., presumably after talking to the policeman guarding the automobile. He admitted he stole the property, and as a result of further questioning, the other defendants were later arrested. Investigation disclosed that the liquor and television sets had been stolen from a hotel. This led to the indictment of defendants.
The described activity of the police constitutes no trespass or illegal invasion of privacy. The vehicle had become unsecured and the articles now physically as well as visually exposed to still another attempted theft. Failure to protect the property would have subjected the police to ridicule, and properly so. They should and did act to safeguard the articles for their owner, whoever that might be. That being so, there was no actionable wrong (see People v. Roberts, 47 Cal.2d 374, 303 P.2d 721; Restatement, Torts, §§ 197, 271; Restatement Second, Torts, Tent. Draft No. 2, § 197; Prosser on Torts [2d ed.], § 22; cf. Foster v. United States, 296 F.2d 65, 67 [5th Cir.]). As already stated, the articles were taken by police from an opened automobile parked on a busy public street. However, any person would be privileged to protect this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kleinbart v. State, 243
...Machlan v. State, Ind., 225 N.E.2d 762 (1967). Compare with People v. Manzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738 (1963), aff'd 21 A.D.2d 57, 248 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1964), and Stewart v. People, Colo., 426 P.2d 545 (b) Standing to Object Prior to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in J......
-
St. Clair v. State
...also Harris v. United States, 370 F.2d 477 (D.C.Cir.1966) and People v. Menzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738 (1963), aff. 21 A.D.2d 57, 248 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1964). Cf. Williams v. United States, 170 A.2d 233 In People v. Ortiz, 147 Cal.App.2d 248, 305 P.2d 145 (1956), the defendant, under a......
-
People v. Boyd
...987, 991; People v. Ray, 26 A.D.2d 560, 561, 271 N.Y.S.2d 453, 454; People v. Manzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738, aff'd 21 A.D.2d 57, 248 N.Y.S.2d 306; People v. Swanberg, 22 A.D.2d 902, 255 N.Y.S.2d 267, modified in other respects and aff'd 16 N.Y.2d 649, 261 N.Y.S.2d 82, 209 N.E.2d I......
-
State v. Montague
...State v. Wade, 190 Kan. 624, 376 P.2d 915 (1962); St. Clair v. State of Maryland, 1 Md.App. 605, 232 A.2d 565 (1967); People v. Manzi, 21 A.D.2d 57, 248 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1964), aff'g 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738 (Sup.Ct. 1963); People v. Simpson, 170 Cal.App.2d 524, 339 P.2d 156 (1959); Pe......