People v. Sanney
| Decision Date | 15 May 1969 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Harry Lewis SANNEY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Aldo L. DiFlorio, Niagara Falls, John P. Mansour, Lockport, for appellant.
Victor A. Rippo, Lockport, for respondent.
Before DEL VECCHIO, J.P., and WITMER, GABRIELLI, MOULE and HENRY, JJ.
Defendant has successfully moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with the crime of manslaughter first degree, on the ground that the evidence produced before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. Incriminating evidence consisting of damaging admissions made by the defendant, was presented to the Grand Jury and the court below has held these admissions to be illegally tainted since they were obtained by use of a radio device concealed on the person of a prospecitive employer during an employment interview with the defendant and transmitted to the police, by prearrangement. We do not agree.
It appears that the conversation complained of took place when defendant was not in custody.
Such transmission of a conversation by one party to it, under the circumstances here present, is not violative of the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and, under similar conditions, has been held proper by our highest courts. (On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270; People v. Gibson, 23 N.Y.2d 618, 298 N.Y.S.2d 496, 246 N.E.2d 349, affg. 29 A.D.2d 843, 288 N.Y.S.2d 866). The evidence thus obtained was legally presented to and properly considered by the Grand Jury. The holding in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 does not affect the result here reached, for in that case, unlike here, there was an invasion of the right of privacy. Furthermore, Katz (decided June 12, 1967) is to apply prospectively only (Kaiser v. New York, 394 U.S. 280, 89 S.Ct. 1044, 22 L.Ed.2d 274 (decided March 31, 1969)); and the indictment before us was returned in October 1966.
Order unanimously reversed, motion denied and indictment reinstated.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. ex rel. Sanney v. Montanye
...Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated by the electronic transmission of his conversation with Bewick. People v. Sanney, 32 A.D.2d 737, 301 N.Y.S.2d 899 (4th Dept.1969). Eventually Sanney pleaded guilty to a charge of assault in the first degree in satisfaction of the manslaughter in......
-
UNITED STATES EX REL. SANNEY v. Montanye
...but the prosecution successfully appealed from the order of dismissal, and the indictment was reinstated. People v. Sanney, 32 A.D.2d 737, 301 N.Y.S.2d 899 (4th Dept. 1969). Petitioner's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, and, without making further motions,......
- Sexstone v. City of Rochester