N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Civil Rights / ARTICLE Bill of Rights
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 8 (2026)

Right of search and seizure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 8. Right of search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants can issue
but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: People v. Johnson, 488 N.E.2d 439 (N.Y. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Johnson, 488 N.E.2d 439 (N.Y. 1985). · cites it 2× “1 The second proposal, introduced by the Bill of Rights Committee, contained no such prohibitory clause and reflected Civil Rights Law § 8. The merit of each proposal was debated at great length (1 Revised Record of New York State Constitutional Convention of 1938, at 406-594).”
Gustafson v. Vill. of Fairport, 106 F. Supp. 3d 340 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 4× “In other words, the New York Court of Appeals has found “that a claim based on the language found in Civil Rights Law § 8 is directly actionable un *351 der the New York State Constitution.”
People v. P. J. Video, Inc., 501 N.E.2d 556 (N.Y. 1986). “The guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures found in section 12 was originally contained in a statute, Civil Rights Law § 8, and there is little in the section’s textual language, the history of its incorporation into the State Constitution in 1938, or the purpose…”
People v. Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. 1992). “Video ( 68 NY2d, at 304, n 4 , supra), the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures found in article I, § 12 was originally contained in a New York statute (Civil Rights Law §8); it was not added to the State Constitution until 1938.”
Wirth v. The City of Rochester, New York (W.D.N.Y. 2020). · cites it 3× “NY Constitution, Article I, § 12 and Civil Rights Law § 8 (Counts IV and V) Both parties seek summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims under Article I, § 12 of the New York Constitution and New York Civil Rights Act § 8.”
Wirth v. The City of Rochester, New York (W.D.N.Y. 2021). “56, and Plaintiff filed a separate motion asking the Court “to reconsider the dismissal of Plaintiff Vagabond Properties, LLC’s claims for violations of its rights under the Fourth Amendment, article 1 section 12 of the New York Constitution, and Civil Rights Law section 8,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.