District Atty. v. Angelo G

40 Citing cases

  1. People v. Vega

    51 A.D.2d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)   Cited 23 times
    In People v Vega (51 A.D.2d 33, 37) in which the Appellate Division, Second Department, refused to direct an unarrested, unindicted person to have his beard removed prior to an appearance in a lineup, the court specifically pointed out the distinction between that case and taking a blood sample, saying: "In contrast to the facts in Angelo G. * * * we are not here dealing with fingerprinting, measurements, writing or speaking for identification, appearing in court, standing, assuming a stance, walking or making a particular gesture.

    The respondent in that proceeding was the Justice who issued this order. This court dismissed the petition in that proceeding, saying (p 594): "As the petitioner has neither been arrested nor indicted, and as no accusatory instrument has been filed against him, the proceeding is 'essentially civil in character' and the order of June 25, 1975 is appealable (see Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G., 48 A.D.2d 576). Therefore, prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the prior order will not lie (CPLR 7801, subd 1).

  2. Special Prosecutor v. Anonymous

    95 Misc. 2d 298 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1978)   Cited 4 times

    Again, both Federal and State decisions dictate that this inquiry must be answered in the negative. (See, e.g., Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G. [Anonymous], 48 A.D.2d 576, 579; Matter of Erlbaum v Gold, 49 A.D.2d 594, supra; People v Mineo, 85 Misc.2d 919; Matter of Burke v Sullivan, 52 A.D.2d 536; United States v Mara, 410 U.S. 19; United States v Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, supra; Davis v Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721; Schmerber v California, 385 U.S. 757, supra; and United States v Doe, 457 F.2d 895, 989-899.) As Chief Judge FRIENDLY succinctly stated in Doe (p 899) "[N]o intrusion into an individual's privacy results from compelled execution of handwriting or voice exemplars".

  3. In re an Investigation into the Death of Abe A.

    81 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    However, this is not to suggest that courts are totally without pre-arrest authority. Suspects may be required to provide examples of their handwriting (Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G., 48 A.D.2d 576, app dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 923). In the above case, the court balanced the governmental interest against that degree of intrusion upon the suspect to determine if the governmental action was reasonable.

  4. Matter of Erlbaum v. Gold

    49 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    Proceeding dismissed, without costs. As the orders in question were civil in nature and hence appealable (see Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G. [Anonymous], 48 A.D.2d 576), this proceeding does not lie (see Matter of Blumenfeld v Dubin, 49 A.D.2d 593). Were we to reach the merits, our determination in Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G. (Anonymous) (supra) would be controlling since, under the allegations appearing in the application, there was probable cause for the granting of the relief sought in the Supreme Court. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Latham, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., dissents and votes to grant the application for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G. (Anonymous) ( 48 A.D.2d 576).

  5. In re of an Investigation into the Death of Jon L.

    56 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 277 times
    Holding under New York law that subject of application for sample of bodily identification is entitled to opportunity to be heard before sample can be taken

    In this context, we now are called upon to determine the extremely sensitive issue of whether a suspect in a homicide investigation may be compelled, pursuant to court order, to supply the People with corporeal evidence, in this case in the form of a sample of his blood for scientific analysis. The question has yielded diverse opinions in the lower courts of this State (compare, e.g., People v Vega, 51 A.D.2d 33; Matter of Alphonso C. [ Morgenthau], 50 A.D.2d 97, app dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 923; and Matter of Mackell v Palermo, 59 Misc.2d 760, with Matter of District Attorney of KingsCounty v Angelo G., 48 A.D.2d 576, app dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 923; People v McClain, 88 Misc.2d 693; People v Mineo, 85 Misc.2d 919; and Matter of Merola v Fico, 81 Misc.2d 206; cf. People v Middleton, 54 N.Y.2d 42 [postarrest order]). Not unexpectedly, it has troubled commentators as well (see, e.g., Note, Detention to Obtain Physical Evidence Without Probable Cause, 72 Col L Rev 712; Note, Constitutional Limitations on the Taking of Body Evidence, 78 Yale LJ 1074).

  6. People v. Middleton

    54 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 167 times
    In People v Middleton (54 N.Y.2d 42), this court recognized that identification of the perpetrator of a crime through bite mark evidence had gained general acceptance in the scientific community.

    I When the application was made for an order permitting examination and the taking of bite impressions, defendant had been arraigned and preliminary hearing had been adjourned for presentation of the matter to the Grand Jury. The Supreme Court has the authority to issue an order in furtherance of a Grand Jury investigation even though no arrest or indictment has yet occurred (Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G., 48 A.D.2d 576, app dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 923; see People v Perri, 72 A.D.2d 106, 112, affd 53 N.Y.2d 957). Nor was it ousted of jurisdiction because defendant had been arraigned in Criminal Court, for CPL 10.10 (subd 3, par f) recognizes the authority of a Supreme Court Justice to sit "as a local criminal court", subdivision 3 of section 10.30 of that law gives a superior court Judge sitting as a local criminal court preliminary jurisdiction, and subdivision 2 of that section makes the preliminary jurisdiction of a local criminal court "subject to divestiture thereof in any particular case by the superior courts and their grand juries." Whether the Supreme Court order be regarded as made by that court sitting as a local criminal court or by a superior court in aid of a Grand Jury proceeding it was, therefore, properly made.

  7. People v. Smith

    86 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)   Cited 14 times
    In Smith, at the prosecutor's request, the court directed the defendant to exhibit his voice to the jury for comparison with a voice on a tape recording made at the time of a drug sale.

    To be sure, if the right to "seize" defendant's person had not already been established, or if the "seizure" of the evidence sought involved an invasion of defendant's personal dignity or intrusion into his body, procedural due process would have required notice and a hearing. It is significant that in each of the cases relied upon in People v. Giglio ( 74 A.D.2d 348, 355, supra) as authority for requiring notice and a hearing, either the person from whom the evidence was sought was not then yet the subject of a pending criminal charge ( Matter of Erlbaum v. Gold, 49 A.D.2d 594; Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G., 48 A.D.2d 576, app dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 923) or the identifying evidence sought required a physical intrusion or significant invasion of privacy not present here ( Matter of Barber v. Rubin, 72 A.D.2d 347; People v. Vega, 51 A.D.2d 33). These authorities are, therefore, completely distinguishable from the instant case. The only procedural due process question that can remain is whether, in its context and under the procedures used, compelling defendant to speak denied him a fair trial.

  8. Matter of Pidgeon v. Rubin

    86 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

    Under the circumstances presented herein, the petition for a writ of prohibition should be dismissed on the merits. It has been consistently held by the courts of this State that the existence of probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a crime in New York is a sufficient basis to confer jurisdiction on a New York court to grant an application by the People on notice, compelling the suspect, who is unincarcerated (and a fortiori an individual who is already incarcerated in New York on an unrelated charge) to appear in a lineup (see Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v. Angelo G., 48 A.D.2d 576, app dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 923; Matter of Merola v. Fico, 81 Misc.2d 206; People v Mineo, 85 Misc.2d 919; People v. McClain, 88 Misc.2d 693). Speaking for this court in Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v. Angelo G. ( supra), Mr. Justice Hopkins wrote, in part (p 580): "Whether the appellants' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated depends on testing the means used here under the dictates of due process.

  9. People v. Hunter

    84 A.D.2d 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    People v. Blake, supra, p 340). The lineup was the product of probable cause (cf. Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v. Angelo G., 48 A.D.2d 576, 578, app dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 923). We have examined the remaining contentions of the defendant and find them to be without merit.

  10. Matter of Pidgeon v. Rubin

    80 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)   Cited 12 times

    Under the circumstances presented herein, the petition for a writ of prohibition should be dismissed on the merits. It has been consistently held by the courts of this State that the existence of probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a crime in New York is a sufficient basis to confer jurisdiction on a New York court to grant an application by the People on notice, compelling the suspect, who is unincarcerated (and a fortiori an individual who is already incarcerated in New York on an unrelated charge) to appear in a lineup (see Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v. Angelo G., 48 A.D.2d 576, dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 923; Matter of Merola v. Fico, 81 Misc.2d 206; People v. Mineo, 85 Misc.2d 919; People v. McClain, 88 Misc.2d 693). Speaking for this court in Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v. Angelo G. (supra), Mr. Justice Hopkins wrote, in part (p 580): "Whether the appellants' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated depends on testing the means used here under the dictates of due process.