People v. Defore
150 N.E. 585, 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 956, 242 N.Y. 13 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In New York, evidence of a crime is not inadmissible in a criminal proceeding simply because it was obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of state statute. The proper remedy for an illegal search is a civil suit against the offending officer, not the exclusion of evidence.
Facts:
- A police officer arrested the defendant, Defore, on a charge of petit larceny for allegedly stealing an overcoat.
- The arrest occurred in the public hallway of Defore's boarding house.
- The officer had not witnessed Defore commit or attempt to commit the alleged misdemeanor.
- Following the arrest, the officer entered Defore's private room without a warrant and conducted a search.
- The search of the room revealed a bag containing a blackjack, which is an illegal weapon.
- Defore was subsequently acquitted of the original petit larceny charge.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Defore, was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon as a second offender.
- Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the blackjack as evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unlawful search.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- During the trial at Special Sessions, the prosecution offered the bag and blackjack into evidence.
- The defendant objected to the admission of the evidence, but the trial court overruled the objection.
- The defendant was convicted, and he appealed the judgment of conviction to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of a crime, obtained by a police officer through an unreasonable search and seizure conducted without a warrant and not incident to a lawful arrest, admissible in a criminal proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, J.
Yes. Evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure is admissible in a criminal prosecution. The court first concluded that the search was illegal because it was not incident to a lawful arrest; the arrest for a misdemeanor was unlawful because the officer did not witness the crime. However, relying on its precedent in People v. Adams, the court held that the method of obtaining evidence does not render it incompetent. While acknowledging the federal exclusionary rule from Weeks v. U.S., the court declined to adopt it for New York, reasoning that federal Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence was not binding on the states. Judge Cardozo famously argued against the exclusionary rule's social cost, stating, 'The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.' He reasoned that the remedy for an illegal search is to hold the officer accountable through civil suits, criminal prosecution, or disciplinary action, rather than letting a guilty defendant go free. The court balanced the social need to repress crime against the need to deter official misconduct and found the former to be of greater weight.
Analysis:
People v. Defore is a landmark case articulating the classic judicial opposition to the exclusionary rule. It established that New York would not exclude illegally seized evidence, placing the state in the majority camp prior to Mapp v. Ohio. The decision underscores the principles of federalism at the time, demonstrating a state high court's authority to interpret its own laws differently from the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal constitution. While its central holding was later abrogated by Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which applied the exclusionary rule to all states, Cardozo's powerful articulation of the policy arguments against the rule remains highly influential and is frequently studied.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Defore