From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 1997
240 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 2, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On March 9, 1995, the defendant sought treatment at Brookdale Hospital, a private facility, and was taken to the psychiatric unit. Pursuant to written hospital procedures, a security guard employed by the hospital patted down the defendant and searched a bag he was carrying. The guard discovered a loaded handgun in the bag. The police were notified and the defendant was arrested and charged with several counts of criminal possession of a weapon. The Supreme Court denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the weapon, concluding that the search conducted by the private security guard was not subject to constitutional scrutiny. We agree.

A search conducted by a private person is not subject to challenge under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (see, People v. Adler, 50 N.Y.2d 730, 736-737, cert denied 449 U.S. 1014; People v. Horman, 22 N.Y.2d 378, 382, cert denied 393 U.S. 1057). But where private conduct becomes "so pervaded by governmental involvement that it loses its character as such," constitutional considerations are implicated (People v. Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282, 286; People v. Adler, supra, at 737).

Here, there was no such governmental involvement. The security guard was not acting as an agent for the police and was not under their supervision or control (compare, People v. Esposito, 37 N.Y.2d 156). There was no police participation in the search (compare, People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 528), which was not undertaken to further a law enforcement objective (see, People v. Ray, supra, at 286-287). The search was conducted by a private employee in accordance with procedures issued by the hospital and in furtherance of his responsibility to protect patients, visitors, and hospital property (see, People v. Ray, supra, at 286-287; People v. Horman, supra, at 380). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly declined to suppress the gun (see, People v. Parris, 220 A.D.2d 254; People v. Tracy, 197 A.D.2d 853; People v. Lovejoy, 197 A.D.2d 353).

O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 1997
240 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDDIE MARTIN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 2, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 105

Citing Cases

People v. Marte

[2, 3] Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the warrantless search of the defendant’s apartment by the…

People v. Marte

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the warrantless search of the defendant's apartment by the owners of…