Monday, April 27, 2015

New York Search & Seizure in the Lippman Era

By Peter F. Stroe
Peter Stroe is a third year student pursuing a concentration in criminal law at Albany Law School. He received his B.S. in Criminal Justice, with a concentration in pre-law, from Utica College, and wrote his Bachelor's thesis on the pre-selection of guilt for indigent defendants when having appointed counsel.
While at Albany Law, he served as an Editor for the Center for Judicial Process, a Student Member of the Justice Jackson Committee, a Student Intern with the Albany County Office of the Public Defender, and Vice President of the law school's Cardozo Society.
He prepared this Presentation, for Professor Bonventre's Judicial Process Seminar, Fall 2014.

Jonathan Lippman was nominated to be New York's Chief Judge by Democratic Governor David Paterson on January 13, 2009. He was then confirmed by the state senate and sworn in on February 11, 2009. Replacing Judith Kaye in the center seat of the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, Jonathan Lippman brought a wealth of knowledge and passion to usher in a new era of civil rights and liberties.

This paper will examine five significant cases to help examine the court’s jurisprudence in the area of searches and seizures. The cases will be discussed in chronological order. They cover the following topics: GPS tracking devices,  warrant requirements,  canine sniffs,  “founded suspicion,”  and the “exigency exception” to the warrant requirement.

The so-called “Lippman Era” could be said to have begun with People v. Weaver.  That was the first major search and seizure case that the new court decided with the participation of Chief Judge Lippman. Writing for the majority––and reversing both lower courts––Chief Judge Lippman held that the placement of a GPS tracking device and its subsequent monitoring of a car’s location did, indeed, constitute a “search” and, as such, required a warrant under New York’s Constitution.
To read the paper, open HERE.