People v. Dworkin

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dworkin

283 N.E.2d 620, 30 N.Y.2d 706, 332 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1370

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 283 N.E.2d 620 (People v. Dworkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Dworkin, 283 N.E.2d 620, 30 N.Y.2d 706, 332 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1370 (N.Y. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division denying the motion to suppress should be affirmed upon the ground that defendants have failed to demonstrate that the marijuana found in their automobile during the course of a border search must be declared inadmissible as the product of an unconstitutional search.

Border searches need not be based on probable cause and customs officials are privileged to stop and examine any vehicle, person or baggage entering the United States (see, e.g., Carroll [708]*708v. United States, 267 U. S. 132,154; Alexander v. United States, 362 F. 2d 379, cert. den. 385 U. S. 977; Henderson v. United States, 390 F. 2d 805; United States v. Guadalupe-Garza, 421 F. 2d 876, 878; Deck v. United States, 395 F. 2d 89, 90). The mere crossing of the border is a sufficient basis for a search and, in the absence of a showing that it was unreasonable in the manner conducted, contraband seized is admissible as evidence. Consequently, once the defendants arrived at the check point, they properly came under official scrutiny and were legitimately subjected to questioning and to a search of their vehicle. It is, therefore, of no relevancy that a quantity of antidraft literature had been observed in the car prior to the search or for that matter, that the customs inspector lacked reason to suspect that the defendants might be in possession of marijuana.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division denying the motion to suppress should be affirmed upon the ground that defendants have failed to demonstrate that the marijuana found in their automobile during the course of a border search must be declared inadmissible as the product of an unconstitutional search.

Border searches need not be based on probable cause and customs officials are privileged to stop and examine any vehicle, person or baggage entering the United States (see, e.g., Carroll [708]*708v. United States, 267 U. S. 132,154; Alexander v. United States, 362 F. 2d 379, cert. den. 385 U. S. 977; Henderson v. United States, 390 F. 2d 805; United States v. Guadalupe-Garza, 421 F. 2d 876, 878; Deck v. United States, 395 F. 2d 89, 90). The mere crossing of the border is a sufficient basis for a search and, in the absence of a showing that it was unreasonable in the manner conducted, contraband seized is admissible as evidence. Consequently, once the defendants arrived at the check point, they properly came under official scrutiny and were legitimately subjected to questioning and to a search of their vehicle. It is, therefore, of no relevancy that a quantity of antidraft literature had been observed in the car prior to the search or for that matter, that the customs inspector lacked reason to suspect that the defendants might be in possession of marijuana.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 N.E.2d 620, 30 N.Y.2d 706, 332 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dworkin-ny-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack