Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph Berger, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1966-07-07
Citations: 18 N.Y.2d 638
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph Berger, Appellant.
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.)
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 638–640

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph Berger, Appellant.
Argued June 2, 1966;
decided July 7, 1966.
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.

Opinion:
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.)