evidence obtained violation in New York

1985Thus, in People v Ronald W. ( 24 N.Y.2d 732 ), it was held that statements given by a probationer to his probation officer in a custodial setting without Miranda warnings could sustain the revocation of probation and imposition of sentence.

1985Thus, in People v Ronald W. ( 24 NY2d 732 ), it was held that statements given by a probationer to his probation officer in a custodial setting without Miranda warnings could sustain the revocation of probation and imposition of sentence.

1997The court has effectively precluded respondent from determining, in the first instance, the application of the exclusionary rule to its proceeding (see, Matter of Juan C. v Cortines, 89 NY2d 659 ; Matter of Boyd v Constantine, 81 NY2d 189 ).

1997The court has effectively precluded respondent from determining, in the first instance, the application of the exclusionary rule to its proceeding (see, Matter of Juan C. v Cortines, 89 NY2d 659 ; Matter of Boyd v Constantine, 81 NY2d 189 ).

1997The right of a criminal defendant to discovery of exculpatory material in the possession of the prosecution (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ) or to be provided with prior written or recorded statements of trial witnesses (see, CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 386 US 866 ) has no application in an administrative proceeding to revoke parole (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f\ [v] * * *)”.

1997Furthermore, “[a] violation of a constitutional right may have different consequences depending on whether the evidence obtained in violation of that right is threatened to be used in criminal or noncriminal proceedings” (Matter of Stedronsky v Sobol, 175 AD2d 373, 375 , lv denied 78 NY2d 864 ; see also, Matter of Mancini v Codd, 46 NY2d 12, 31 ).

1997The right of a criminal defendant to discovery of exculpatory material in the possession of the prosecution (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ) or to be provided with prior written or recorded statements of trial witnesses (see, CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 386 US 866 ) has no application in an administrative proceeding to revoke parole (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f\ [v] * * *)”.

1993(Contra, State v Mollica, 114 NJ 329, 554 A2d 1315 [1989] [refusing to extend New Jersey Constitution to govern the conduct of officers from another State, and declining to apply the "silver platter” doctrine to the seizure of evidence in Illinois by Illinois police officers, which evidence was used in a criminal trial in New Jersey].) Consequently, in applying the "under color of authority” principle to the facts of this case, the court finds that the New Jersey police detectives were exerting the powers of their office when they arrested the defendant.

1993(C f., Elkins v United States, 364 US 206 [1960] [abrogating in all Federal cases the silver platter doctrine under which State law enforcement agents not acting on behalf of the Federal Government had been permitted to turn over to the same evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment]; see also, Bassiouni, Citizen’s Arrest 34 [1977].) In view of New York State constitutional concerns for civil rights and liberties, this court deems it necessary to extend the silver platter proscription, and the Fourth Amendment to the conduct of such sister State officer through NY Constitution, ar