Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in New York

10 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1969–2004 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Stovall v. Dennogreen scotus · 1967 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 1978–1984 2 sentences 1984(See Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293, 302, n 6 ; People v Dolphin, 77 AD2d 571, 572 .) The rule excluding improperly obtained out-of-court identifications is different in both purpose and effect from the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. 1978The criteria for retroactivity set forth by the Supreme Court in Stovall v Denno ( 388 US 293, 297 ), clearly calls for no retroactive application.	1	2
Brown v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1975 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 1 sentence 1987It has been recognized, however, "that in some circumstances strict adherence to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule imposes greater cost on the legitimate demands of law enforcement than can be justified by the rule’s deterrent purposes” (Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590, 608-609 [Powell, J., concurring in part]).	1	1
United States v. Peltiergreen scotus · 1975 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980The reason for focusing on the date of the search in any case involving the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is that "we cannot regard as blameworthy those parties who conform their conduct to the prevailing statutory or constitutional or statutory norm * * * If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct then evidence obtained from a search should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” (United States v Peltier	1	1
Cain v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980The reason for focusing on the date of the search in any case involving the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is that "we cannot regard as blameworthy those parties who conform their conduct to the prevailing statutory or constitutional or statutory norm * * * If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct then evidence obtained from a search should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” (United States v Peltier	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
People ex rel. Piccarillo v. New York State Board of Parole green ny · 1979 2 sentences 2004Piccarillo v New York State Bd. of Parole ( 48 NY2d 76 [1979]) held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies in parole revocation proceedings in this state. 2004Shop , both cases involving an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule (as stated above), and both of which established the general proposition that "[i]t can no longer be disputed that the exclusionary rule is applicable to administrative . . . proceedings in New York" ( Piccarillo , 48 NY2d at 81 ), to parole revocation proceedings in particular.	2	2004–2004
People v. Deitch neutral nyappdiv · 1980 1 sentence 1984(See Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293, 302, n 6 ; People v Dolphin, 77 AD2d 571, 572 .) The rule excluding improperly obtained out-of-court identifications is different in both purpose and effect from the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.	1	1984–1984
People v. Adams green ny · 1981 1 sentence 1984In People v Adams ( 53 NY2d 241, 250-251 ), the Court of Appeals wrote: “In * * * cases generally reliable evidence of guilt is suppressed because it was obtained illegally.	1	1984–1984
People v. Johnson green nycountyct · 1976 1 sentence 1980In People v Johnson ( 88 Misc 2d 749 ) a defendant was indicted from a mug shot illegally taken and retained.	1	1980–1980
People v. Feinlowitz green ny · 1971 1 sentence 1980(People v Buia, 34 NY2d 529 , see, also, People v Feinlowitz, 29 NY2d 176 .) Therefore, applying pre-Payton law, this court finds that this defendant’s warrantless arrest was valid when made and declines to suppress any alleged "fruits” of that arrest.	1	1980–1980
People v. Buia neutral ny · 1974 1 sentence 1980(People v Buia, 34 NY2d 529 , see, also, People v Feinlowitz, 29 NY2d 176 .) Therefore, applying pre-Payton law, this court finds that this defendant’s warrantless arrest was valid when made and declines to suppress any alleged "fruits” of that arrest.	1	1980–1980
Weeks v. United States red · 1914 1 sentence 1978As far back as 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Walder v United States ( 347 US 62 ), enunciated the principle that the constitutional protections inherent in the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule of Weeks v United States ( 232 US 383 ) could not be turned to the defendant’s "own advantage, and provide [the defendant] with a shield against contradiction of his untruths” (p 65).	1	1978–1978
Walder v. United States green scotus · 1954 1 sentence 1978As far back as 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Walder v United States ( 347 US 62 ), enunciated the principle that the constitutional protections inherent in the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule of Weeks v United States ( 232 US 383 ) could not be turned to the defendant’s "own advantage, and provide [the defendant] with a shield against contradiction of his untruths” (p 65).	1	1978–1978
United States v. Calandra green scotus · 1974 1 sentence 1975In United States v Calandra ( 414 US 338, 349-350 , supra), the Supreme Court, in deciding not to extend the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to Grand Jury proceedings, stated: "Permitting witnesses to invoke the exclusionary rule before a grand jury would precipitate adjudication of issues hitherto reserved for the trial on the merits and would delay and disrupt grand jury proceedings.	1	1975–1975
Roviaro v. United States green scotus · 1957 1 sentence 1969(People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86, 92; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53, 61 .) In such case, the right of the defendant is paramount to .that of the prosecution, and the prosecution is put to the unalterable option of making disclosure or not proceeding with the prosecution.	1	1969–1969

Where else courts name it

CA 62 (1967–2023) OH 55 (1977–2025) IL 42 (1980–2021) MD 33 (1975–2022) TX 31 (1984–2024) PA 30 (1971–2019) OR 17 (1981–2021) MN 15 (1977–2024) CO 15 (1985–2023) AR 13 (1982–2005) KS 12 (1984–2024) VA 12 (1981–2022) DC 12 (1985–2024) FL 11 (1978–2007) UT 11 (1983–2025) IN 11 (1975–2015) NY 10 (1969–2004) MO 10 (1976–1990) NJ 10 (1983–2016) SC 9 (1990–2020) TN 8 (1982–2019) NC 8 (1978–2017) MI 8 (1976–2021) AL 8 (1988–2026) NM 7 (1991–2009) WI 7 (1977–2015) LA 7 (1986–2023) OK 7 (1982–2019) NE 6 (1988–2005) CT 6 (1993–2025) ID 6 (1984–2024) WA 6 (1973–1997) RI 5 (1986–2001) MA 5 (1998–2011) MS 3 (1977–2011) SD 3 (1989–2009) AK 3 (1978–1990) IA 3 (1995–2019) GA 3 (1983–2008) DE 2 (2016–2023) AZ 2 (1998–2018) WV 2 (1987–1994) ND 2 (1990–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check