Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Berger 18 N.Y.2d 638

← Cases

People v. Berger

18 N.Y.2d 638 Court N.Y. Decision date 1966-07-07 English

Judges Concur: Judges VaN Vookhis, Burke, Scileppi, BergaN and KeatiNG. Chief Judge DesmoNd and Judge Fuld dissent and vote to reverse on the ground that the electronic eavesdrops inside two offices, one of which was a law office, were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as a physical intrusion into private premises and as a “ general search ” for evidence. (See Siegel v. People, 16 N Y 2d 330, 333, per Desmond, Ch. J. [dissenting]; People v. McCall, 17 N Y 2d 152, 161, per Desmond, Ch. J. [concurring]; People v. Grossman, 45 Misc 2d 557; cf. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476; Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505.)

Contents

Majority

p. 638
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph Berger, Appellant.
Argued June 2, 1966;
decided July 7, 1966.
p. 640
J oseph E. Brill and Bernard J. Levy fox appellant.
Frank 8. Hogan, District Attorney (H. Richard Uviller, Alan F. Leibowits and Jeremiah B. McKenna of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Judges VaN Vookhis, Burke, Scileppi, BergaN and KeatiNG. Chief Judge DesmoNd and Judge Fuld dissent and vote to reverse on the ground that the electronic eavesdrops inside two offices, one of which was a law office, were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as a physical intrusion into private premises and as a “ general search ” for evidence. (See Siegel v. People, 16 N Y 2d 330 , 333, per Desmond, Ch. J. [dissenting]; People v. McCall, 17 N Y 2d 152 , 161, per Desmond, Ch. J. [concurring]; People v. Grossman, 45 Misc 2d 557 ; cf. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476 ; Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 .)

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited