People v. Overton
| Decision Date | 07 July 1967 |
| Citation | 283 N.Y.S.2d 22,20 N.Y.2d 360,229 N.E.2d 596 |
| Parties | , 229 N.E.2d 596 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Carlos OVERTON, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Leonard Rubenfeld, Dist. Atty. (James J. Duggan, Tuckahoe, of counsel), for appellant.
David C. Gilberg, Mount Vernon, and Michael H. Gilberg, New York City, for respondent.
Three detectives of the Mount Vernon Police Department having obtained a search warrant went to the Mount Vernon High School. The warrant directed a search of the persons of two students and, also, of their lockers.
The detectives presented the warrant to the vice-principal, Dr. Panitz, who sent for the two students, one of whom was the defendant, Carlos Overton. The detectives searched them and found nothing. A subsequent search of Overton's locker, however, revealed four marijuana cigarettes.
The defendant moved to invalidate that portion of the search warrant which directed a search of his locker, on the ground that the papers were defective upon which it was based. This motion was granted. The court denied the motion to suppress, however, on the grounds that the vice-principal had consented to the search and that he had a right to do so. The Appellate Term reversed and dismissed the information, holding that the consent of the vice-principal could not justify an otherwise illegal search. The People have appealed from this order of the Appellate Term.
It is axiomatic that the protection of the Fourth Amendment is not restricted to dwellings (Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374). A depository such as a locker or even a desk is safeguarded from unreasonable searches for evidence of a crime (United States v. Blok, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 188 F.2d 1019).
There are situations, however, where someone other than the defendant in possession of a depository may consent to what otherwise would have been an illegal search. Such a case was United States v. Botsch, 364 F.2d 542 (2d Cir., 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 937, 87 S.Ct. 959, 17 L.Ed.2d 810. In that case, the defendant had rented a shed from one Stein. Stein retained a key to the shed and accepted deliveries on behalf of the defendant. When the police approached Stein and informed him of their suspicion that the defendant was receiving goods obtained through fraud, Stein consented to a search of the shed.
In upholding the search, the court noted two significant factors. First, Stein had a key to the shed and, second, more than a mere land-lord-tenant relationship existed, since Stein was empowered to take deliveries on behalf of the defendant. The court also noted that Stein had a right to exculpate himself from implication in the defendant's scheme.
Considering all these factors cumulatively, the court concluded that, in this situation, Stein could give consent to the search. Thus, the search was not unreasonable in contravention of the Fourth Amendment.
Dr. Panitz, in this case, gave his consent to the search of Overton's locker. The dissenting opinion suggests, however, that Dr. Panitz' consent was not freely given, because he acted under compulsion of the invalid search warrant. If this were the case, his consent might be rendered somewhat questionable. However, Dr. Panitz testified that: 'Being responsible for the order, assignment, and maintenance of the physical facilities, if Any report were given to me by Anyone of an article or item of the nature that does not belong there, or of an illegal nature, I would inspect the locker.' (Italics supplied.)
This testimony demonstrates beyond doubt that Dr. Panitz would have consented as he did regardless of the presence of the invalid search warrant.
The power of Dr. Panitz to give his consent to this search arises out of the distinct relationship between school authorities and students.
The school authorities have an obligation to maintain discipline over the students. It is recognized that when large numbers of teenagers are gathered together in such an environment, their inexperience and lack of mature judgment can often create hazards to each other. Parents, who surrender their children to this type of environment, in order that they may continue developing both intellectually and socially, have a right to expect certain safeguards.
It is in the high school years particularly that parents are justifiably concerned that their children not become accustomed to antisocial behavior, such as the use of illegal drugs. The susceptiblility to suggestion of students of high school age increases the danger. Thus, it is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarter v. Raybuck
...have broad supervisory and disciplinary powers. Horton, supra, 690 F.2d at 480 (footnote omitted). See also People v. Overton, 20 N.Y.2d 360, 283 N.Y.S.2d 22, 229 N.E.2d 596 (1967). ("[S]chool authorities have an obligation to maintain discipline over the students .... Parents, who surrende......
-
State In Interest of T.L.O.
...of regularly inspecting students' lockers, an expectation of privacy might not have arisen. Cf. People v. Overton, 20 N.Y.2d 360, 362, 283 N.Y.S.2d 22, 24, 229 N.E.2d 596, 598 (N.Y.Ct.App.1967), vacated, 393 U.S. 85, 89 S.Ct. 252, 21 L.Ed.2d 218 (1968), adhered to, 24 N.Y.2d 522, 301 N.Y.S.......
-
Doe v. Renfrow
...the authority to enter a classroom on the day in question in order to prevent the use of illicit drugs. People v. Overton, 20 N.Y.2d 360, 283 N.Y.S.2d 22, 229 N.E.2d 596 (1967); M. v. Bd., supra; Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F.Supp. 47 (N.D.N.Y.1977). Acting alone, each school administrator could ......
-
In re Patrick Y.
...at any time upon reasonable cause, and school officials had pass key that opened all lockers); and cf. People v. Overton, 20 N.Y.2d 360, 283 N.Y.S.2d 22, 229 N.E.2d 596 (1967); S.A. v. State, 654 N.E.2d 791, 795 In the absence of such a clear policy, and especially when there is a contrary ......