People v. Martello

Citations: 717 N.E.2d 684; 93 N.Y.2d 645; 695 N.Y.S.2d 525; 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1425

Court: New York Court of Appeals; July 6, 1999; New York; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of New York addressed the retroactive application of the ruling in People v. Bialostok, which established that pen register devices capable of monitoring telephone conversations are considered eavesdropping devices under New York law. The case involved Paul Martello, charged with enterprise corruption and related crimes, whose conviction relied heavily on evidence obtained through electronic surveillance, initiated before the Bialostok decision. Martello argued for suppression of this evidence, claiming the pen register surveillance should have adhered to stricter probable cause standards rather than the reasonable suspicion standard. The prosecution contended that Bialostok should not apply retroactively, asserting compliance with existing laws at the time of surveillance. The Supreme Court denied the suppression motion, agreeing with the prosecution that Bialostok should be applied only prospectively, which led to the affirmation of Martello's conviction.

A unanimous Appellate Division affirmed that the ruling in Bialostok applies prospectively only, excluding its application to pen register orders or electronic eavesdropping warrants issued before the Bialostok decision. The Appellate Division concurred with the Supreme Court that Bialostok, as a case interpreting New York State statutory law and establishing a new rule, is assessed under New York's flexible retroactivity approach rather than the Federal automatic retroactivity rule. The defendant argued for retroactive application based on a Fourth Amendment interpretation, invoking Griffith v. Kentucky's automatic retroactivity. In contrast, the People argued that Bialostok is rooted in state law, warranting the Pepper-Mitchell tripartite test for retroactivity. The court sided with the People, clarifying that Bialostok determined whether a pen register with audio capabilities should be deemed an eavesdropping device requiring a warrant based on probable cause. The analysis in Bialostok emphasized statutory compliance rather than constitutional reasonableness and highlighted the intent of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) to protect privacy against potential abuses of audio-capable devices. The court concluded that because Bialostok established a new rule under CPL article 700, a retroactivity analysis using the Pepper-Mitchell factors is necessary.

The ruling in Bialostok established that audio-capable pen registers, even when not used for audio recording, fall under New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) article 700, previously limited to eavesdropping surveillance. This marked a significant departure from existing legal practices, imposing probable cause requirements on such devices for the first time. The determination of whether this new rule should have retroactive effect hinges on three considerations: the purpose of the new rule, reliance on the previous rule, and the impact of retroactive application on justice. The Bialostok rule is deemed applicable only prospectively because it serves as a deterrent against unauthorized eavesdropping rather than affecting the reliability of evidence. Law enforcement had relied on the old rule that did not require a warrant for pen register surveillance, and applying the new rule retroactively would burden the justice system and not enhance deterrence. Additionally, the case at hand does not invoke Bialostok’s precedent due to the enactment of CPL article 705, which governs pen register surveillance and was in effect after the facts relevant to Bialostok but before the current case's facts. Therefore, the court considers for the first time the relationship between the Bialostok ruling and compliance with CPL article 705.

In People v Kramer, the court affirmed that the defendants had standing to contest the legality of pen register/trap and trace orders based on events from 1995. However, the applicability of Bialostok, particularly concerning the impact of CPL article 705, was not raised by any parties in Kramer, limiting the court's ability to address whether a pen register that could function as an eavesdropping device—but was only used as a pen register—should be classified as such after the enactment of CPL article 705. The court clarified that Bialostok did not create a blanket rule equating all pen registers with audio capabilities to eavesdropping devices. The Appellate Division was instructed to determine if the use of the pen registers in the cases involved triggered probable cause for eavesdropping and to consider any remaining issues from the appeals.

Under CPL article 705, a "pen register" is defined as a device that records or decodes impulses identifying dialed numbers, excluding devices used for billing or similar business purposes. Critically, this definition does not exclude pen registers capable of being converted into eavesdropping devices but not used as such. Additionally, the definition of "eavesdropping" in CPL 700.05 was amended to exclude pen registers or trap and trace devices authorized under CPL article 705. This legislative framework indicates a clear intent to categorize all pen registers, including those adaptable for eavesdropping, as mere pen registers, contrary to Bialostok's interpretation.

In the current case, the defendant assumes Bialostok applies and argues for its retroactive effect on evidentiary rulings. The People counter that Bialostok is not applicable because the pen register surveillance occurred after CPL article 705 was enacted, and law enforcement's adherence to this article's requirements is uncontested.

Bialostok is derived from the interpretation of New York State law and is applicable only on a prospective basis. It is not applicable to the current case's facts and circumstances. At the time of Bialostok, there was no governing statute for pen register devices, which are now authorized under CPL article 705, allowing a judge to issue an order based on reasonable suspicion. The procedures outlined in CPL article 705 were strictly adhered to in this case, leading to the proper denial of suppression. The defendant's additional arguments lack merit. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order is affirmed. Notably, a pen register records dialed numbers without requiring a warrant based on probable cause; it only necessitates a judicial order grounded in reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, the defendant did not claim that the pen register was used to monitor conversation content.