People v. Sanney

32 A.D.2d 737, 301 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 737 (People v. Sanney) 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. Sanney, 32 A.D.2d 737, 301 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, motion denied and indictment reinstated. Memorandum: Defendant has successfully moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with the crime of manslaughter first degree, on the ground that the evidence produced before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. Incriminating evidence consisting of damaging admissions made by the defendant, was presented to the Grand Jury and the court below has held these admissions to be illegally tainted since they were obtained by use of a radio device concealed on the person of a prospective employer during an employment interview with the defendant and transmitted to the police, by prearrangement. We do not agree. It appears that the conversation complained of took place when defendant was not in custody. Such transmission of a conversation by one party.to it, under the circumstances here present, is not violative of the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and, under similar conditions, has been held proper by our highest courts. (On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747; People v. Gibson, 23 N Y 2d 618, affg. 29 A D 2d 843.) The evidence thus obtained was legally presented to and properly considered by the Grand Jury. The holding in Katz v. United States (389 U. S. 347) does not affect the result here reached, for in that case, unlike here, there was an invasion of the right of privacy. Furthermore, Katz is to-apply prospectively only in (Kaiser v. New York, 394 U. S. 280) and the indictment before us was [738]*738returned in. October, 1966. (Appeal from order iof Niagara County Court granting motion to dismiss indictment.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.2d 737, 301 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanney-nyappdiv-1969.