People v. Berger

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Berger

219 N.E.2d 295, 18 N.Y.2d 638, 272 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1213

New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 7, 1966·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Judges VaN Vookhis, Burke, Scileppi, BergaN and KeatiNG. Chief Judge DesmoNd and Judge Fuld dissent and vote to reverse on the ground that the electronic eavesdrops inside two offices, one of which was a law office, were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as a physical intrusion into private premises and as a “ general search ” for evidence. (See Siegel v. People, 16 N Y 2d 330, 333, per Desmond, Ch. J. [dissenting]; People v. McCall, 17 N Y 2d 152, 161, per Desmond, Ch. J. [concurring]; People v. Grossman, 45 Misc 2d 557; cf. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476; Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Judges VaN Vookhis, Burke, Scileppi, BergaN and KeatiNG. Chief Judge DesmoNd and Judge Fuld dissent and vote to reverse on the ground that the electronic eavesdrops inside two offices, one of which was a law office, were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as a physical intrusion into private premises and as a “ general search ” for evidence. (See Siegel v. People, 16 N Y 2d 330, 333, per Desmond, Ch. J. [dissenting]; People v. McCall, 17 N Y 2d 152, 161, per Desmond, Ch. J. [concurring]; People v. Grossman, 45 Misc 2d 557; cf. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476; Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505.)

People v. Berger, 219 N.E.2d 295, 18 N.Y.2d 638, 272 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1213 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

219 N.E.2d 295 (People v. Berger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related