The Significance of the New York State Constitution
The United States Supreme Court has the final word concerning the meaning of
the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. The New York Court of Appeals
may disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation, logic or policy making approach
to a search and seizure issue, but they are powerless to overrule the Supreme Court in the
realm of the fourth amendment.
The New York State Constitution, however, is an entirely different matter. Even
though the wording of New York State Constitution Article 1 Section 12 is identical to
the fourth amendment, the New York State Court of Appeals has the final word
concerning its meaning, and the United States Supreme Court is powerless to review the
New York Court’s interpretation as long as such interpretation does not impair a right
granted to a criminal defendant by the Supreme Court.
The New York Court of Appeals can thus grant greater rights to criminal
defendants under the New York State Constitution, and has done so in many search and
seizure areas. Included in such areas are the following:
- Rejection of the Illinois v. Gates totality of circumstances test
and retention of the Aguilar – Spinelli two prong test in the area
of confidential informant probable cause1
- Creation of the Darden hearing 2
- Rejection of the doctrine permitting police good faith to save
evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.3
- Rejection of the “car frisk” doctrine of Michigan v. Long.4
- Rejection, until further notice, of the Plain Touch Doctrine.5
The point is that if the Court of Appeals has granted greater rights to criminal
defendants under the New York State Constitution than the Supreme Court has granted
under the fourth amendment and if, in a given situation, the police have violated the
rights given to the defendant under the New York State Constitution, it will do no good
for the defense attorney to make a fourth amendment argument. Rather, the defense
attorney must make an argument under New York State Constitution or under both. Case
law is far too prevalent where the Court of Appeals has denied suppression to a defense
attorney on a search and seizure issue because the attorney only argued under the fourth
amendment. In such cases, where the Court of appeals says “We note that counsel has
made no similar argument under our State Constitution”, it is tantamount to saying that
the attorney is guilty of malpractice. Thus, whenever you are faced with a search and
seizure issue, keep both the federal and state constitutions in mind.
1
Aguilar v. Texas 378 US 108 (1964)
Spinelli v U.S. 393 US 410 (1965)
Illinois v. Gates 462 US 213 (1983)
People v. Bigelow 66 NY 2d 417 (1985)
People v. Johnson 66 NY 2d 398 (1985)
2
People v. Darden 34 NY 2d 174 (1974)
People v. Edwards 95 NY 2d 486 (2000)
3
People v. Bigelow 66 NY 2d 417 (1985)
4
People v. Torres 74 NY 2d 224, People v. Carvey 89 NY 2d 707 (1997) cf. Michigan v. Long 463 US
1032 (1983)
5
People v. Diaz 81 NY 2d 106 (1993)
cf Minnesota v. Dickerson 508 US 366 (1993)