276 People v Seabrook (Marcus), 2015 NY Slip Op 50338(U).
Crimes—Trespassing—Sufficiency of Factual Allegations of Ac-
cusatory Instrument. (App Term, 1st Dept, Mar. 19, 2015)
[Next page is 171.]
SELECTED CASES DECIDED
IN
OTHER COURTS
OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
[997 NYS2d 602]
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v YONA
WEISSMAN, Defendant.
Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, August 26, 2014
HEADNOTES
Crimes — Unlawful Search and Seizure — Consent to Search
1. In a prosecution for criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law
§ 215.50) for use of a cell phone in the courtroom during a rape trial to take
pictures, defendant’s motion to suppress all photographs and other data
recovered from his cell phone was granted since defendant’s consent for the
court officer to view the pictures was compelled, and not freely given. The offi-
cer—a peace officer responsible for the security in the courthouse with the
power to carry out a warrantless search whenever constitutionally permissible
and acting pursuant to his special duties—properly and legally approached de-
fendant on the founded suspicion that he was in violation of 22 NYCRR 29.1,
which prohibits photography or recordings of any nature in the entire
courthouse, based upon seeing defendant holding his cell phone near his chest
in such a way that he believed defendant was photographing him. However,
given that the courthouse is a special place where a diminished expectation of
privacy exists and in light of the diminished expectation for a spectator in the
courthouse to behave however one wishes so long as no laws are being violated,
defendant’s consent was nullified. He was not given any option as to whether