You are here: / / KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS...
,

KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONES BASED UPON WHERE THE INTERCEPTION WAS TO BE MADE (NEW YORK); THE CELL PHONES NEED NOT BE (AND WERE NOT) LOCATED IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined that Kings County Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for defendant’s cell phones based up where the interception was to be made (New York). The cell phones need not be (and were not) located in New York:

The issue raised on defendant’s appeal is whether a Kings County Supreme Court Justice had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for defendant’s cell phones, which were not physically present in New York, for the purpose of gathering evidence in an investigation of enterprise corruption and gambling offenses committed in Kings County. To resolve defendant’s jurisdictional challenge, we must decide whether the eavesdropping warrants were “executed” in Kings County within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law § 700.05 (4). We hold that eavesdropping warrants are executed in the geographical jurisdiction where the communications are intentionally intercepted by authorized law enforcement officers within the meaning of CPL article 700. People v Schneider, 2021 NY Slip Op 03486, CtApp 6-3-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL BECAUSE OF COUNSEL’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WITHOUT A HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (CT APP).
A SUBSEQUENT INJURY TO THE SAME BODY “MEMBER” WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PERCENTAGE LOSS OF THE PRIOR AWARD (CT APP).
TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE INTO DEFENDANT’S SERIOUS REQUEST FOR ANOTHER ATTORNEY, CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE, STORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION (CT APP).
NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH WHEN IT WAS SEIZED AND SEARCHED; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST (CT APP).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK.
A RESTAURANT PROPERTY-INSURANCE POLICY WHICH COVERS “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” DOES NOT COVER THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CAUSED BY COVID-19 (CT APP).
DEFENDANT HAD REQUESTED NEW COUNSEL AND ARGUED THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE PROPER INQUIRY BEFORE DENYING THE REQUEST; DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY REPRESENTED BY HIS ORIGINAL COUNSEL; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT RULED THE DEFENDANT “ABANDONED” HIS “INVOLUNTARY PLEA” ARGUMENT BY REMAINING REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA; THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED DEFENDANT NEVER ABANDONED THE “INVOLUNTARY PLEA” ARGUMENT AND THE LINE OF FOURTH DEPARTMENT DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED (CT APP).

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

PLAINTIFFS, ATTORNEYS PRACTICING LANDLORD-TENANT LAW, ALLEGED DEFENDANT PUBLISHER... DOCUMENTS CREATED AND HELD BY A PRIVATE ENTITY PURSUANT TO THE REGULATIONS OF...