People v. Wasserman
668 N.Y.S.2d 314, 668 NYS2d 314, 175 Misc.2d 314 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's plain view doctrine, the warrantless seizure of incriminating evidence not specifically listed in a search warrant is permissible if the police are lawfully on the premises, have lawful access to the object, and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent, regardless of whether the discovery was inadvertent.
Facts:
- On December 16, 1996, defendant Wasserman reported his wife, Carole Wasserman, missing from their apartment.
- On December 20, 1996, Carole Wasserman’s body was discovered in a shallow grave behind the defendant's place of business in New Jersey.
- The victim's body was naked, had numerous stab wounds, and a nightgown was found nearby.
- Police obtained a search warrant for the defendant's apartment specifying eight items, including a knife, but not mentioning blood or serological evidence.
- While executing the warrant, Sergeant Maroney turned over a mattress in the master bedroom and noticed a large hole on the underside had been covered with cardboard.
- Detective Hal Sherman, a crime scene expert, observed what he recognized as blood spots on a bedroom wall and on the base of a lamp.
- Detective Sherman also noticed a section of the bedroom carpet appeared much cleaner than the surrounding area, as if it had been recently steamed.
- A Jiffy steam cleaner was found inside a bathroom in the apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Wasserman, was charged with the murder of his wife.
- The defendant filed a pretrial motion in the Supreme Court of New York County, a trial-level court, to suppress physical evidence seized from his apartment.
- In a prior ruling on March 11, 1997, the court determined that the search warrant itself was properly issued.
- The court held a suppression hearing on September 25 and 26, 1997, to address the seizure of items not specifically named in the warrant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the seizure of evidence not enumerated in a valid search warrant violate the Fourth Amendment if the police are lawfully on the premises and the item is in plain view, but the discovery of the item was expected rather than inadvertent?
Opinions:
Majority - Charles H. Solomon, J.
No. The seizure of evidence not enumerated in a valid search warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the item is in plain view and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent, even if its discovery was anticipated by police. The court held that New York law no longer requires that the discovery of evidence under the plain view doctrine be inadvertent. This aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Horton v. California, which disavowed the inadvertence requirement as a matter of federal law. The controlling test in New York, articulated in People v. Diaz, requires only that (1) police are lawfully in the position from which the object is viewed, (2) police have lawful access to the object, and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Here, officers were executing a valid warrant, making their presence lawful. The bloodstains, cleaned carpet, and steam cleaner were all in plain sight, and their connection to a stabbing was immediately apparent to an expert. However, the court suppressed a bloodstain found on the inside of a curtain, as finding it required a further search beyond what was in plain view, which is not permitted under the doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision formally signals the abandonment of the 'inadvertence' requirement for the plain view doctrine in New York, bringing state law into closer alignment with the federal standard established in Horton v. California. It clarifies for law enforcement that they do not lose the ability to seize evidence in plain view simply because they suspected it might be present. The analysis carefully distinguishes between a permissible seizure of items in plain sight during a lawful search and an impermissible further search for concealed items not covered by a warrant. This provides a clear, objective standard for police conduct, focusing on the legality of the initial intrusion rather than the officer's subjective expectations.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Wasserman