White v. State

Decision Date15 July 2021
Docket Number530088
Citation196 A.D.3d 927,150 N.Y.S.3d 414
Parties In the Matter of Eric R. WHITE, Doing Business as ERW Wholesale, Petitioner, v. State of New York TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo (Paul J. Cambria Jr. of counsel), for petitioner.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel), for Commissioner of Taxation and Finance, respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Tax Law § 2016 ) to review a determination of respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal sustaining a penalty imposed under Tax Law article 20.

Petitioner is a member of the Seneca Nation of Indians, a Native American tribe recognized by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. ERW Wholesale is petitioner's tobacco wholesale business, licensed by the Seneca Nation of Indians operating on the Cattaraugus Reservation. In December 2012, ERW sold 150 cases (9,000 cartons) of Native American brand cigarettes to Oien'Kwa Trading, a Native American-owned business located on the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation. Oien'Kwa Trading immediately sold the cigarettes to Saihwahenteh, a Native American-owned business located on the Ganienkeh territory. Oien'Kwa Trading hired ERW to deliver the cigarettes directly to Saihwahenteh. Sean Snyder, an ERW employee, was employed as the truck driver.

While en route, Snyder failed to stop at a commercial vehicle inspection checkpoint and, as a result, he was pulled over by a state trooper. The trooper asked Snyder for the vehicle registration and asked him what he was transporting. Snyder told him his cargo consisted of cigarettes that were being taken from one Native American territory to another and produced an envelope of documents containing, among other things, the vehicle registration card, insurance card, invoices, bill of lading and ERW's Seneca Nation of Indians business license. Eventually the trooper was joined by another trooper and they escorted Snyder back to the inspection checkpoint for the truck to be inspected. Snyder was immediately issued a ticket for disobeying a traffic control device, and then a trooper began a commercial vehicle enforcement or safety inspection of the truck. The inspection lasted approximately 40 minutes, whereupon a vehicle examination report was issued citing two safety violations. However, rather than releasing Snyder and his vehicle at the end of the inspection, a State Police investigator continued to detain him and search the truck. The investigator asked Snyder for the key to unlock the cargo area and, when Snyder did not promptly locate same, a trooper utilized bolt cutters to remove the padlock, and the investigator proceeded to search the interior of the cargo area. There he discovered the cargo to be as Snyder had described – cases containing cartons of cigarettes. Rather than end the search at that point, the investigator then removed a carton from one of the cases, opened it, pulled out and examined an individual pack of cigarettes, and found that it did not have a tax stamp. After some discussion with his superior officer, the investigator confiscated the cigarettes, and Snyder was permitted to leave with the empty truck.

In December 2014, the Department of Taxation and Finance issued a notice of determination to petitioner stating that he owed a $1,259,250 penalty pursuant to Tax Law article 20 for "possession of unstamped or unlawfully stamped cigarettes."1 In September 2015, petitioner filed a petition challenging the penalty against him. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained the penalty, finding that it was lawfully imposed and merited as ERW's conduct was a violation of the Tax Law. Upon petitioner filing a notice of exception to this determination, respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal affirmed the determination as to petitioner and sustained the penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding in this Court challenging the Tribunal's determination.

In a proceeding such as this, this Court's scope of review is limited to whether the Tribunal's determination "has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of HDV Manhattan, LLC v. Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 156 A.D.3d 963, 965, 67 N.Y.S.3d 313 [2017] ; see Matter of Jay's Distribs., Inc. v. Boone, 148 A.D.3d 1237, 1237, 48 N.Y.S.3d 551 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 918, 2017 WL 4015519 [2017] ). Petitioner contends that the Tribunal's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, as the only evidence sustaining the penalty – the unstamped cigarettes – was obtained by an unlawful search in violation of petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights.2 We agree.

"It is well settled that a business[person's] private commercial property is entitled to Fourth Amendment protections" ( People v. Spinelli, 35 N.Y.2d 77, 80, 358 N.Y.S.2d 743, 315 N.E.2d 792 [1974] [citation omitted]). "State agencies, charged with purely administrative responsibilities, just as those engaged in the enforcement of the criminal law, must conduct their investigative and enforcement functions in compliance with constitutional requirements and, more particularly, within the confines of the Fourth Amendment" ( Matter of Finn's Liq. Shop v. State Liq. Auth., 24 N.Y.2d 647, 654, 301 N.Y.S.2d 584, 249 N.E.2d 440 [1969] [citations omitted], cert denied 396 U.S. 840, 90 S.Ct. 103, 24 L.Ed.2d 91 [1969] ). When the state's agents exceed those limits, "it should not be permitted to avail itself of the fruits of such unlawful activity in order to impose sanctions upon the persons whose constitutional rights have been violated" ( id. at 655, 301 N.Y.S.2d 584, 249 N.E.2d 440 ).

It is undisputed that the seized cigarettes at the heart of this matter were the product a warrantless search. "[W]arrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless they fall within one of the acknowledged exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement" ( People v. Diaz, 81 N.Y.2d 106, 109, 595 N.Y.S.2d 940, 612 N.E.2d 298 [1993], abrogated on other grounds Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 [1993] ). "Where a warrant has not been obtained, it is the [agency that] ha[s] the burden of overcoming th[e] presumption" of unreasonableness ( People v. Hodge, 44 N.Y.2d 553, 557, 406 N.Y.S.2d 736, 378 N.E.2d 99 [1978] ). Respondent Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (hereinafter Commissioner) argues that the search at issue here falls under two exceptions to the rule, namely, the automobile exception and the administrative search exception. Under the automobile exception, police may search a vehicle without a warrant "when they have arrested one of its occupants and there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband [or] evidence of the crime" ( People v. Thompson, 106 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 963 N.Y.S.2d 780 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Galak, 81 N.Y.2d 463, 466–467, 600 N.Y.S.2d 185, 616 N.E.2d 842 [1993] ). Thus, the validity of a search is subject to a two-prong test – arrest and probable cause – neither of which is satisfied here. As to the first prong, the record reveals that Snyder, the driver and sole occupant of the truck that was searched, was never arrested. With respect to probable cause, the record demonstrates a complete lack thereof. When Snyder was stopped, he was completely cooperative with the trooper and forthrightly explained that he was transporting cigarettes from a Native American reservation to a Native American territory, and he immediately gave the trooper an envelope containing the pertinent documents, namely the registration, invoices and bill of lading. Although the trooper testified that Snyder appeared nervous when he was initially pulled over, this conduct in and of itself is insufficient to justify a search (see People v. Hackett, 47 A.D.3d 1122, 1124, 850 N.Y.S.2d 676 [2008] ). Once back at the vehicle inspection checkpoint, Snyder readily exited his vehicle and turned his keys over to the trooper; he was never asked if the cigarettes were stamped. When the trooper employed the bolt cutters and the investigator entered the cargo area, the investigator found that the cargo was exactly as Snyder had told them – cases of cigarettes. The investigator's search of the cargo area, including opening a case and then a carton, in order to inspect a single pack of cigarettes for a tax stamp was not precipitated by a complaint, tip, investigation or statements from Snyder, any of which might have provided probable cause. On the contrary, the investigator testified that the search proceeded only after he conferred with the trooper who believed that the cigarettes were Native American brand and, as such, were not stamped. The transportation of cigarettes from a Native American reservation to a Native American territory does not, in and of itself, give rise to a reasonable inference of criminality (see People v. Jock, 40 Misc.3d 457, 462–463, 967 N.Y.S.2d 818 [St. Lawrence County Ct. 2013] ).

Likewise, the safety inspection did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Transp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 31, 2022
    ...on other grounds Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 [1993] ; Matter of White v. State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib., 196 A.D.3d 927, 929, 150 N.Y.S.3d 414 [2021] ). One such exception is the so-called administrative search exception. Warrantless administrative......
  • Owner Operator Ind. Drivers Assn. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Transp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 31, 2022
    ... ... exceptions to the warrant requirement ( see People v ... Sanders , 26 N.Y.3d 773, 776 [2016]; People v ... Diaz , 81 N.Y.2d 106, 109 [1993], abrogated on other ... grounds Minnesota v Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366 [1993]; ... Matter of White v State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib. , ... 196 A.D.3d 927, 929 [2021]). One such exception is the ... so-called administrative search exception. Warrantless ... administrative searches may be upheld "where the ... activity or premises sought to be inspected is subject to a ... ...
  • People v. Sorrell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 15, 2021
    ...196 A.D.3d 923151 N.Y.S.3d 534The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Robert J. SORRELL, Appellant.112128Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.Calendar Date: June 1, ... end, Hunter McCargar testified that, while driving on the day of the accident at approximately 5:24 p.m., he came upon an accident involving a white "banged up" Subaru that had collided with a guiderail. McCargar observed a man, who was the only individual in the Subaru, "on his hands and knees ... ...
  • Schreiber v. N.Y. State Tax Appeals Tribunal
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 28, 2023
    ... ... Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 214 A.D.3d 1133, ... 1134 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks, brackets and ... citations omitted]; see Matter of Obus v New York State ... Tax Appeals Trib., 206 A.D.3d 1511, 1512 [3d Dept 2022], ... lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 907 [2023]; Matter of White ... v State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib., 196 A.D.3d 927, 929 ... [2021]). Where the question presented is one "of pure ... statutory interpretation, ... we consider the statutory ... language and legislative history without deference to the ... Tribunal's interpretation" (Matter of Purcell v ... ...

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