The defense argued that it was a “reverse warrant,” searching everyone first, then finding suspects, violating the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.
The prosecution argued that the warrant was limited by time and geography. The court ultimately allowed the geofence evidence, finding that the warrant was sufficiently particularized in scope and the procedure did not automatically violate the Fourth Amendment.
Even though it is not a Supreme Court case, “Mangano” is important today because it shows how lower courts are currently handling geofence warrants.
Kamins addressed iCards, a written record officers complete when they stop or question someone on the street, conduct a frisk or make an arrest in connection with a stop. They are directly tied to search and seizure law because they document and help justify the street encounters governed by the Fourth Amendment and the People v. De Bour framework.
Today, iCards function as constitutional accountability records and data sources used for pattern-and-practice analysis and litigation in Fourth Amendment cases. They are also part of why the stop-and-frisk law in New York is heavily documented compared to many other jurisdictions.
“I firmly believe that iCards will most certainly change a lot of protocols in the District Attorney’s office,” Kamins said.
Probable cause
“Courts are always tinkering with this formula, as far as what is probable cause,” Kamins said of probable cause. “You’ve got to have very certain, specific factors.”
Kamins cited McCray v. Illinois, a case involving defendant Willie McCray, where police officers received information from a confidential informant that McCray was selling narcotics. The officers knew the informant from prior dealings and testified that the informant had proven reliable in the past. Police arrested McCray and found heroin.
In the end, the Supreme Court held that police may establish probable cause based on information from a reliable confidential informant without necessarily revealing the informant’s identity in court. This became an important rule in Fourth Amendment law.
Attorney feedback
Legal professionals in the room shared their thoughts on Kamins’s presentation.
William Neri, Esq. Photo: Mario Belluomo/Brooklyn Eagle
Kings County Criminal Bar Association President and attorney Michael Sheinberg said that Kamins “did a fantastic job.”
“Things change so fast in the legal world regarding Search and Seizure,” Sheinberg said. “This is really something that defense attorneys and prosecutors should be listening to. Barry is a wonderful presenter and a total expert on the subject.”
Darran Winslow, Esq., echoed those sentiments: “Any chance I get to hear Judge Kamins is a chance to become educated. He’s fantastic.”
Winslow added that every time he observes Kamins in action, it improves how he approaches his practice.
Kamins, a retired Supreme Court justice, was previously administrative judge of the Criminal Court of New York City, administrative judge for Criminal Matters for the Second Judicial District and chief of Policy and Planning for the New York Court System.
He was appointed Criminal Court judge by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2008 and elevated to acting Supreme Court justice in 2009. Kamins was ultimately elected State Supreme Court Justice in 2013.
The retired judge is also known for his unique sense of style — most notably, his signature bow ties, which he told the Brooklyn Eagle he acquired a taste for when he was in private practice.