People v. Sardegna
| Decision Date | 20 December 1982 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jeffrey SARDEGNA and Carol Sardegna, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mark Lemle Amsterdam, P.C., New York City, for appellants.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Edward Golden, South Huntington, of counsel, Enrico Lazio on the brief), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J.P., and O'CONNOR, THOMPSON and BRACKEN, JJ.
Appeal (1) by defendant Jeffrey Sardegna from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (JASPAN, J.), rendered October 15, 1981, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) by defendant Carol Sardegna from a judgment of the same court, also rendered October 15, 1981, convicting her of criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeals bring up for review the denial of defendants' motion to controvert an eavesdropping warrant and to suppress physical evidence.
Matter remitted to Criminal Term for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of minimization in accordance herewith relating solely to those conversations in which defendants participated, and appeals held in abeyance in the interim.
Where minimization is at issue, the People bear the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance (People v. Floyd, 41 N.Y.2d 245, 250, 392 N.Y.S.2d 257, 360 N.E.2d 935). At bar, the People failed to offer sufficient evidence to justify denial of the defendants' motion without a hearing. However, the right to object to the "use of intercepted conversations obtained through eavesdropping devices is personal and limited to a party to the conversation or whose premises are involved" (People v. Butler, 33 A.D.2d 675, 305 N.Y.S.2d 367, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 499, 318 N.Y.S.2d 943, 267 N.E.2d 587; see People v. Edelstein, 98 Misc.2d 1018, 415 N.Y.S.2d 366; United States v. Williams, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 580 F.2d 578, cert. den. sub nom. Lincoln v. United States, 439 U.S. 832, 99 S.Ct. 112, 58 L.Ed.2d 127). Accordingly, since defendants had no proprietary interest in the subject premises they may object only to those conversations in which they participated.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gallina
...standing to raise any substantive claims concerning those warrants (People v. Sergi, 96 A.D.2d 911, 466 N.Y.S.2d 93; People v. Sardegna, 91 A.D.2d 671, 457 N.Y.S.2d 123; cf. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 967, 22 L.Ed.2d 176; People v. Edelstein, 54 N.Y.2d 306, ......
-
People v. Varacalli
...no question but that defendants lacked standing (People v. Edelstein, 54 N.Y.2d 306, 445 N.Y.S.2d 125, 429 N.E.2d 803; People v. Sardegna, 91 A.D.2d 671, 457 N.Y.S.2d 123; People v. Butler, 33 A.D.2d 675, 305 N.Y.S.2d 367, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 499, 318 N.Y.S.2d 943, 267 N.E.2d 587). That conclus......
-
People v. Sergi
...involved" (People v. Butler, 33 A.D.2d 675, 305 N.Y.S.2d 367, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 499, 318 N.Y.S.2d 943, 267 N.E.2d 587; People v. Sardegna, 91 A.D.2d 671, 457 N.Y.S.2d 123; People v. Weiss, 63 A.D.2d 662, 663, 404 N.Y.S.2d 392; People v. Edelstein, 54 N.Y.2d 306, 445 N.Y.S.2d 125, 429 N.E.2d 8......
-
People v. Gallina
...being tapped (see People v. Gallina, supra, p. 338, 466 N.Y.S.2d 414; People v. Sergi, 96 A.D.2d 911, 466 N.Y.S.2d 93; People v. Sardegna, 91 A.D.2d 671, 457 N.Y.S.2d 123). Defendant herein was a party to the taped conversations procured as a result of those wiretaps and, therefore, has the......