Summary
In People v. Berger (18 N.Y.2d 638, supra), the eavesdropping produced conversations relating to the crime under investigation and described in the affidavit supporting the order.
Summary of this case from People v. GrossmanOpinion
Argued June 2, 1966
Decided July 7, 1966
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, MITCHELL D. SCHWEITZER, J.
Joseph E. Brill and Bernard J. Levy for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney ( H. Richard Uviller, Alan F. Leibowitz and Jeremiah B. McKenna of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment affirmed; no opinion.
Concur: Judges VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN and KEATING. Chief Judge DESMOND and Judge FULD dissent and vote to reverse on the ground that the electronic eavesdrops inside two offices, one of which was a law office, were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as a physical intrusion into private premises and as a "general search" for evidence. (See Siegel v. People, 16 N.Y.2d 330, 333, per DESMOND, Ch. J. [dissenting]; People v. McCall, 17 N.Y.2d 152, 161, per DESMOND, Ch. J. [concurring]; People v. Grossman, 45 Misc.2d 557; cf. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476; Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505.)