People v. McMurty
1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1348, 64 Misc. 2d 63, 314 N.Y.S.2d 194 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a suppression hearing where testimony is equally balanced between an officer's 'dropsy' account and a defendant's illegal search claim, the defendant fails to meet their burden of proof to show the seizure was unlawful. Under controlling precedent that places the burden on the defendant, the motion to suppress must be denied.
Facts:
- On July 23, 1970, Patrolman Charles Frisina was on duty in a patrol car.
- Frisina observed James McMurty and another man in a doorway.
- According to Frisina, McMurty saw the patrol car, stepped out of the doorway, and dropped a small plastic container from his hand.
- Frisina stated he retrieved the container, identified its contents as marijuana based on his experience, and arrested McMurty.
- According to McMurty, he was walking on the street when Frisina approached him.
- McMurty, who had prior drug convictions, knew he possessed marijuana and that an illegal search defense was his only option, so he consciously chose not to drop it.
- McMurty testified that Frisina ordered him into a doorway, searched him without probable cause, found the marijuana, and then arrested him.
Procedural Posture:
- The People charged James McMurty with possession of marijuana in the New York City Criminal Court, a court of first instance.
- McMurty filed a motion to suppress the marijuana, arguing it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure in violation of his constitutional rights.
- The court held a suppression hearing to take testimony and rule on the legality of the seizure.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a suppression hearing, does a defendant meet their burden of proof to demonstrate an illegal seizure when their testimony directly contradicts an officer's 'dropsy' testimony, and no other evidence is presented to corroborate either account?
Opinions:
Majority - Irving Younger, J.
No, a defendant does not meet their burden of proof in this scenario. Although 'dropsy' testimony from police should be scrutinized with especial caution, the court is bound by precedent from the Court of Appeals (People v. Baldwin) that places the burden of proof on the defendant to show that a seizure was unlawful. When a defendant's testimony and an officer's testimony are equally credible but contradictory, with no independent corroboration for either, the testimony is considered 'poised in the balance.' In this situation, the party with the burden of proof has failed to carry it. Since the defendant bears the burden, his motion to suppress the evidence must be denied.
Analysis:
This case is significant not for establishing a new rule but for its powerful judicial acknowledgment and critique of the systemic problem of police perjury in 'dropsy' cases. Judge Younger's opinion highlights the tension between a judge's duty to follow precedent regarding the burden of proof and the judicial responsibility to ensure justice in the face of suspect testimony. While the outcome favored the prosecution, the opinion's reasoning encourages extreme scrutiny of 'dropsy' testimony in future cases and serves as a call to action for prosecutors to address police misconduct. The decision remains a widely-read commentary on the practical, and sometimes perverse, effects of the exclusionary rule on police conduct and testimony.
