The New York Court of Appeals ruled 7-to-0 yesterday that general warrants cannot be used to search every person at the location unless there is reason to believe each person is involved in criminal activity. The ruling came out of a 2006 drug raid in Syracuse, where the police were issued an all-persons-present warrant after informants bought cocaine at the location on two separate occasions.
However, police allegedly did not have enough evidence to strip search Robert Mothersell, present in the home at the time. The Times reports police did find a bag of cocaine between Mr. Mothersell's buttocks after the search. An NYPD spokesman said they were waiting for a lawyer's review to see what implications may be for the department.
Manhattan lawyer Richard Emery said the case was a "heartening development for privacy," adding, "The court is saying to law enforcement: ‘Hey, you have gotten sloppy. You can’t just put in boilerplate language on a warrant; you need clear and objective facts to search any individual.’" One officer did admit that there were no grounds to arrest Mr. Mothersell until after he was found holding drugs, but their warrant permitted the strip search.
Though this particular warrant permitted the strip search, the judge ruled that many warrants are written in vague terms, giving police little guidance on what they should be searching for. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote, "A search warrant exists and is required not simply to permit, but to circumscribe, police intrusions." Chief Assistant DA for Onondaga County James Maxwell pointed out that the ruling didn't declare all-persons-present warrants unconstitutional, just that the ruling "gives us some guidance as to what the courts should be looking for when police apply for these warrants."
