Failure to correctly identify the court and the name ofthe judge signing a search warrant a fatal defectPeople v Gavazzi, 2012 NY Slip Op 08054, Court of Appeals
This LawBlog’s summary of Gusler v. City of Long Beach, USCA,Docket #11-4493-cv [see http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-failure-to-name-parties-appealing.html]noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, ruled that the failure tocorrectly name the parties appealing a federal district court’s ruling was afatal jurisdictional defect.
In People v Gavazzi the defects challenged by Gavazziinvolved the name of the jurisdiction, the name of the court and the name of the justice signing a searchwarrant.
The Court of Appeals, Justice Smith dissenting, held that awarrant to search Gavazzi’s residence in the Village of Greene, Chenango County, was defective as the result of the inadvertent typing of "Local CriminalCourt, Town of Broome, Broome County" at the head of the warrant insteadof "Local Criminal Court, Town of Greene, Chenango County." There isno municipality of Broome in either Broome County or Chenango County and theVillage Justice signed the warrant without correcting the error.
Further, said the court, the Justice’s signature on a linemarked "Signature of Judge or Justice” was illegible.
The Appellate Division had held that the warrant did not substantially complywith §690.45(1)* of the Criminal Procedure Lawbecause it contained "no information from which the issuing court can bediscerned" (see 84 AD3d 1427 at 1429). The Court of Appeals agreed withthe Appellate Division's analysis, explaining that a search warrant must contain"[t]he name of the issuing court," again citing CPL §690.45 [1]).** Here, however, the Village Justice who signed the warrantincluded no designation of his court, his signature was illegible, there is noseal, and the caption referred to a nonexistent town.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "on its facethe warrant appears to [have been] issued by an unidentified judge in anonexistent court and town in a different county", concluding that thewarrant did not substantially comply with CPL §690.45(1).
The bottom line: evidence sized under color ofthe warrant had to be suppressed.
* §690.45, in pertinent part,provides that “A search warrant must contain: 1. The name of the issuing courtand, except where the search warrant has been obtained on an oral application, thesubscription of the issuing judge;"
** The Court of Appeals notedthat standard for adherence to the statutory requirement is "substantial —rather than literal — compliance."
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08054.htm
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder