You are here: / / COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS TO INTERCEPT CELL...
,

COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS TO INTERCEPT CELL PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES SENT AND RECEIVED OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants to intercept cell phone calls and text messages made and received outside New York State:

“[A]ny justice of the supreme court of the judicial district in which the eavesdropping warrant is to be executed” (CPL 700.05[4]) “may issue an eavesdropping warrant . . . upon ex parte application of an applicant who is authorized by law to investigate, prosecute or participate in the prosecution of the particular designated offense which is the subject of the application” (CPL 700.10[1]). Although the word “execute” is not defined in CPL article 700, the plain meaning of the word “execute” and the use of that word in relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Law reveal that an eavesdropping warrant is “executed” when a communication is intercepted by law enforcement officers, that is, when the communication is “intentionally overheard or recorded” by law enforcement officers (CPL 700.05[3][a]; see CPL 700.35[1]). Here, the eavesdropping warrants were executed in Kings County, New York, where the communications were intercepted by the New York City Police Department … . Therefore, under the applicable provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, had jurisdiction to issue the eavesdropping warrants.

Moreover, we reject the defendant’s argument that the eavesdropping warrants, which were authorized for the purpose of investigating crimes that were occurring in New York, constituted an unconstitutional extraterritorial application of New York State law … . People v Schneider, 2019 NY Slip Op 07424, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE DIVORCED IN COLORADO, THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN RESIDE IN NEW YORK; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED COLORADO LAW IN DETERMINING FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED.
MOTHER’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY DID NOT AMOUNT TO “FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT” WARRANTING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOUR-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH RISER AT THE ENTRANCE TO A SHOWER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Valid Cause of Action Stated in Slip and Fall Suit Against Abutting Property Owner for Obstruction in Sidewalk (Gas Cap Cover)
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE GUN FOUND UNDER HIS SEAT IN THE CAR; THE PEOPLE DID NOT RELY ON THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF A CAR POSSESS CONTRABAND IN THE CAR; RATHER THE PEOPLE RELIED ON THE TESTIMONY OF A POLICE OFFICER WHO SAW DEFENDANT PLACE AN OBJECT UNDER HIS SEAT; AFTER DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE CAR, THE BARREL OF THE GUN WAS IN PLAIN VIEW (SECOND DEPT).
THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES TO MOTHER IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; FATHER WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE OF ANY FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT; THE FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTIES WERE NOT CONSIDERED; THE RELEVANT REGULATORY AND STATUTORY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 WAS DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, THE ORDER WAS SELF-PRESERVED AND APPEALABLE; THE PRESENTATION OF AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT THE ACTION WAS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, DESPITE THE MOTION COURT’S REJECTION OF THE ORDER AS INCOMPLETE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE THE... DEFENSE COUNSEL’S QUESTIONS WHETHER COMPLAINANTS HAD HIRED LAWYERS AND...