People v. Mineo

Citation381 N.Y.S.2d 179,85 Misc.2d 919
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Stephen MINEO and Santoro Lanuto, Defendants.
Decision Date11 February 1976
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

Peter M. Antioco, for Stephen Mineo, defendant.

Bert Koehler, Jr., for Santoro Lanuto, defendant.

Nicholas Ferraro, Dist. Atty., for plaintiff.

BERNARD DUBIN, Justice.

The People move for an order compelling the defendants to submit to the taking of their palm prints by the New York City Police Department.

Defendants herein were indicted by a Queens County Grand Jury on December 9, 1975 and charged with the crime of robbery in that they were alleged to have stolen a sum of money from a McDonald hamburger restaurant. On November 30th, the defendants were apprehended in a green Ford van, registration number 513 QLR. Prior to their arrest, another McDonald restaurant had been held up in August by two men who escaped in a green Ford van bearing a similar registration number. During an investigation of this earlier theft, the police department forensic unit uncovered latent palm prints. The People now seek this order compelling the defendants to submit to a palm print examination for the purpose of investigating their possible connection with the first crime.

Counsel for the defendants oppose this application on three grounds:

(1) that palm prints have no legal value and, in effect, constitute a form of harassment;

(2) that the Court lacks authority to grant such an unusual order; and

(3) that such an order, in any event, constitutes a 'body search' prohibited by the Fourth an Fifth amendments.

In researching defendants' first point, this Court notes that legal authorities in general have shown a uniform lack of interest on the subject of palm prints and it is safe to assume that the topic will never be the major issue of a legal seminar. However, if chapters have not been written on this form of evidence at least there are enough footnotes to furnish judicial guidance. Basically, palm prints are a subordinate branch of Dactylography, which is the scientific study of fingerprints. Authorities indicate that all fingerprints leave distinctive ridge outlines which furnish a scientific basis for human identification. Such ridge formations also are present in the palms and these formations are equally valid as a method of identification (5 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts, pp. 78 through 82). Thus, in People v. Les, 267 Mich. 648, 255 N.W. 407, the Court held that palm prints are just as valid and accurate as fingerprints and the Federal courts have also upheld this view (cf. In re John M. Reardon, 1 Cir., 445 F.2d 798). (For additional reported cases, see 28 A.L.R.2d p. 1127.) Palm prints then are the legal equivalent of fingerprints. Fingerprints, in turn, have been accepted as evidence in New York since the early part of this century (People v. Roach, 215 N.Y. 592, 109 N.E. 618 (1915), and constitutionally permissible (People v. Sallow, 100 Misc. 447, 165 N.Y.S. 915 (1917)).

Further, our New York statutes recognize the legality of both fingerprints and palm prints. Criminal Procedure Law, section 160.10, imposes on the police a legal duty to take the fingerprints of an arrested person or defendant, particularly one charged with a felony. In addition, the same statute grants a police officer who makes an arrest for any offense the right to take the fingerprints of an arrested person if the police officer 'reasonably suspects that such person is being sought by law enforcement officials for the commission of some other offense'. (CPL, § 160.10(2c), emphasis added.) In this connection, it should be noted that 'Whenever fingerprints are required to be taken pursuant to subdivision one or * * * subdivision two, the photograph and Palmprints of the arrested person or the defendant * * * may also be taken'. (CPL, § 160.10(3), emphasis added.)

Based then on the above, it would follow that the District Attorney's request rests upon legal grounds and is not for the purpose of harassment.

Defendants next argue that the Court lacks authority to grant such an unusual order. They contend that a request for palm prints is not simply an administrative or ex parte matter, but rather one which is investigatory in nature; compelling a person to render evidence against himself. At the very least, it should be the subject of a full, contested hearing. An analysis of this argument shows that the defendants have, in effect, raised two issues: Does the Court have the technical authority to grant such an order? And the second issue,--if it does, upon what legal grounds may it grant it?

A review of the law in connection with the first question shows that our Courts have entertained investigatory applications over a wide range of criminal subjects. They have considered motions for lineups (People v. Vega, 82 Misc.2d 718, 370 N.Y.S.2d 429; People v. Falco, 67 Misc.2d 520, 324 N.Y.S.2d 680); for blood tests (People v. Longo, 74 Misc.2d 905, 347 N.Y.S.2d 321), for surgical operations to recover bullets (People v. Smith, 80 Misc.2d 210, 362 N.Y.S.2d 909), and even applications to remove facial hair (Matter of Mackell v. Palermo, 59 Misc.2d 760, 300 N.Y.S.2d 459). In virtually all of these cases the Court felt it possessed the authority to grant the relief requested. In some instances the court did not even discuss this basic issue of authority and apparently relied on inherent jurisdiction to issue administrative orders. In other cases the court acted under its general powers of jurisdiction, particularly section 2--b, subdivision 3, of the Judiciary Law, which grants a court of record the right 'to devise and make new process and forms of proceedings, necessary to carry into effect the powers and jurisdiction'. So, it is clear that the court has authority to make procedural orders.

The second issue is the fundamental one. When may a court grant such an order? In considering this question, a trio of Appellate Division cases have recently indicated that these orders are not to be granted routinely but must satisfy definite legal standards involving jurisdiction and procedure. These three cases are In the Matter of Alphonse C. v. Morgenthau (1st Dept.) 50 A.D.2d 91, 376 N.Y.S.2d 126; (N.Y.L.J., December 16, 1975, pp. 1 and 4); In the Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v. Angelo G. (Second Department, 48 A.D.2d 576, 371 N.Y.S.2d 127); and People v. Vega, (Second Dept.) 51 A.D.2d 33, 379 N.Y.S.2d 419. A study of these cases is then necessary to establish guidelines for investigatory orders.

The first case, Matter of Alphonse (supra) dealt with the court's authority to order a suspect into a lineup. The First Department ruled that a lineup is a limited form of detention. Detention is a creature of statute. Hence, in the absence of statutory authority, whether it be arrest or probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime charged, a court lacks authority to issue a detention order.

The second case, which dealt with a request for a suspect's handwriting sample, concerned itself with the broader constitutional issues involved. However, the appellate court did indicate that probable cause was a sufficient basis to confer jurisdiction on the lower court stating (48 A.D.2d at page 579, 371 N.Y.S.2d at page 130):

'No doubt, the requirement that a person repair on a date certain to the office of the district attorney for the purpose of giving handwriting samples is a species of detention, since the liberty of the movement of the person, to that extent, is limited. However, If the detention is based on probable cause,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Abe A., Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 17 June 1982
    ...127, app. dsmd. 38 N.Y.2d 923, 382 N.Y.S.2d 981, 346 N.E.2d 820; People v. McClain, 88 Misc.2d 693, 389 N.Y.S.2d 976; People v. Mineo, 85 Misc.2d 919, 381 N.Y.S.2d 179; and Matter of Merola v. Fico, 81 Misc.2d 206, 365 N.Y.S.2d 743; cf. People v. Middleton, 54 N.Y.2d 42, 444 N.Y.S.2d 581, 4......
  • People v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 17 May 1976
    ...(compelling wearing of hat in courtroom so defendant could be compared with photo)); People v. Mineo and Lanuto (Supreme Court, Queens County, 85 Misc.2d 919, 381 N.Y.S.2d 179 (takof palm prints)); People v. Yukl, 83 Misc.2d 364, 372 N.Y.S.2d 313 (Supreme Court, New York County, N.Y.L.J. 12......
  • Special Prosecutor (Onondaga County) v. G. W.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 19 May 1978
    ...576, 579, 371 N.Y.S.2d 127 (2nd Dept. 1975); Erlbaum v. Gold, 49 A.D.2d 594, 371 N.Y.S.2d 135 (2nd Dept. 1975); People v. Mineo, 85 Misc.2d 919, 381 N.Y.S.2d 179 (1976); Burke v. Sullivan, 52 A.D.2d 536, 382 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1st Dept. 1976); United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 93 S.Ct. 774, 35......
  • People v. Howard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 8 June 1977
    ...supra; Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178; United States v. Dionisio, supra; People v. Mineo, 85 Misc.2d 919, 381 N.Y.S.2d 179; and People v. Allah, 84 Misc.2d 500, 376 N.Y.S.2d 399. Courts, however, seem to be divided on the issue of whether, absent a valid......
  • 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