People v. Magaril

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Magaril

38 A.D.2d 698, 328 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5512

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 698 (People v. Magaril) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Magaril, 38 A.D.2d 698, 328 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on March 18,1971, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur— Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Kupferman and Capozzoli, JJ.; Murphy, J., concurs in the following memorandum: I concur solely on the ground that there was sufficient probable cause for the arrest and for the incidental search (People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86; People v. Coffey, 12 N Y 2d 443; People v. Castro, 29 N Y 2d 324) without use of the “ pen register ” (a mechanical device attached to a given telephone to determine the number dialed) which I would hold to be an unlawful interception of a wire communication (U. S. Code, tit. 18, § 2510 et seq.; United States v. Dote, 371 F. 2d 176; United States v. Caplan, 255 F. Supp. 805; United States v. Covello, 410 F. 2d 536, cert, den., 396 U. S. 879). Respondent’s argument that no communication was disclosed by such device, since the “ pen register ” disconnects as soon as the number is dialed, is not persuasive. As was perceptively observed in United States v. Caplan (supra, p. 808): “Paul Revere’s associate, who hung a lantern in the Old North Church, would hardly have been exculpated at a trial for treason if he argued that he was not sending a communication, but was only illuminating the belfry.” On constraint of the recent decision of the Court of Appeals in People v. Castro (supra) I would also agree that disclosure of the informant was not required under the circumstances here presented.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on March 18,1971, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur— Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Kupferman and Capozzoli, JJ.; Murphy, J., concurs in the following memorandum: I concur solely on the ground that there was sufficient probable cause for the arrest and for the incidental search (People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86; People v. Coffey, 12 N Y 2d 443; People v. Castro, 29 N Y 2d 324) without use of the “ pen register ” (a mechanical device attached to a given telephone to determine the number dialed) which I would hold to be an unlawful interception of a wire communication (U. S. Code, tit. 18, § 2510 et seq.; United States v. Dote, 371 F. 2d 176; United States v. Caplan, 255 F. Supp. 805; United States v. Covello, 410 F. 2d 536, cert, den., 396 U. S. 879). Respondent’s argument that no communication was disclosed by such device, since the “ pen register ” disconnects as soon as the number is dialed, is not persuasive. As was perceptively observed in United States v. Caplan (supra, p. 808): “Paul Revere’s associate, who hung a lantern in the Old North Church, would hardly have been exculpated at a trial for treason if he argued that he was not sending a communication, but was only illuminating the belfry.” On constraint of the recent decision of the Court of Appeals in People v. Castro (supra) I would also agree that disclosure of the informant was not required under the circumstances here presented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 698, 328 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-magaril-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack