Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 9, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal by the People concerns two related cases, focusing on several court orders regarding defendants' standing to challenge pen register orders and suppress wiretap evidence linked to an eavesdropping warrant. The appeal involves three specific orders: (1) an August 1, 1996 order confirming the defendants' standing to challenge evidence, (2) an amended order on August 13, 1996 that upheld the standing and granted motions to dismiss counts 3, 16, 23, 27, and 30 of Westchester County Indictment No. 95-01850 for grand larceny and conspiracy, and (3) a September 10, 1996 order that suppressed evidence derived from the pen register orders and eavesdropping warrant.
Key decisions include the dismissal of appeals regarding defendant Stephen Muller and the August 1 order, which was superseded by the August 13 order. The appeal also dismissed the aspect of the amended order confirming standing but reversed parts of the amended order, reinstating the previously dismissed counts of the indictment. Additionally, the September 10 order was reversed, denying the motion to suppress the derived evidence.
The underlying investigation began in January 1995 with orders for pen registers on phones linked to defendant Daniel Kramer, suspected of running a bookmaking operation. Subsequent eavesdropping led to evidence of illegal gambling and race-fixing, resulting in search warrants that uncovered significant cash and gambling records. Kramer and others were indicted for grand larceny, conspiracy, and tampering with sports contests, while also facing additional charges related to the gambling operation. The defendants sought to dismiss specific counts of the indictment related to grand larceny and conspiracy.
Defendants in gambling and race-fixing cases moved to suppress evidence from pen registers used at Kramer's residence, arguing these devices functioned as eavesdropping tools and did not comply with legal standards set in *People v Bialostok*. The County Court dismissed charges of grand larceny and conspiracy against harness racing drivers, determining their actions did not constitute larceny under the law. Although the prosecution claimed only Kramer had standing to contest the pen registers, the court found all defendants had standing as they were targets of the investigation. The court granted suppression of evidence, ruling the pen registers required an eavesdropping warrant. On appeal, the prosecution argued the court erred in granting standing to the defendants, a point the appellate court agreed with. According to New York law, only an “aggrieved” person has standing to challenge wiretap validity, and in this case, only Kramer was the target of the pen register orders. Consequently, the defendants lacked standing to contest the use of the pen registers in Kramer's home, necessitating a reversal of the suppression order. Additionally, the appellate court reinstated the grand larceny and conspiracy charges against the harness drivers, concluding their actions constituted larceny by false promise under Penal Law § 155.05(2) as they misrepresented their intent to compete fairly in fixed races. The court clarified that there is no requirement for defendants to be the sole beneficiaries of the scheme, affirming the validity of the charges against them.
