History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Berger
18 N.Y.2d 638
NY
1966
Check Treatment

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.)

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Berger
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jul 7, 1966
Citation: 18 N.Y.2d 638
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.