Matter of Harlem Check Cashing Corp. v. Bell
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Commonwealth v. Chaitt (Pa. 1955)
- Schwartz v. Texas (Supreme Court of the United States 1952)
- McGuire v. State (Md. 2001)
- People v. Maranian (Mich. 1960)
- Griffith v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)
- United States v. Salvatore Benanti (2d Cir. 1957)
- United States v. Charles v. Gris (2d Cir. 1957)
- People v. Saperstein (N.Y. 1957)
- Black v. Impellitteri (New York Supreme Court 1952)
- People v. Shapiro (N.Y. 1980)
- People v. Dinan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
- People v. Grant (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1958)
- Solk v. Department of State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1955)
- In re the Interception of Telephone Communications of Anonymous (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- People v. Feld (N.Y. 1953)
- People v. Katz (New York County Courts 1952)
- Commonwealth v. Charpentier (Allegheny County Court of Oyer and Terminer 1951)
- Tela-News Flash, Inc. v. District Attorney (New York Supreme Court 1950)
- People v. Stemmer, Krakower (N.Y. 1948)
- People v. Stemmer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1948)
- People v. Harkavy (New York County Courts 1948)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We are not persuaded that we are constrained by the decision in Weiss v. United States (308 U. S. 321) to condemn as illegal the disclosure and divulgence, by use in evidence, of the intercepted messages which were recorded by tapping wires in accordance with the statutes of the State as expressly authorized by the Constitution of the State (N. Y. Const., art. I, § 12; Code Crim. Pro., § 813-a). That case dealt with intercepted telephone messages procured without a court order and in violation of the laws of this State (Penal Law, § 1423, subd. 6) by a police officer acting under instructions of a post-office inspector, and the sole question decided was “ whether the [Federal] trial court properly received in evidence intercepted telephone communications ” (Weiss v. United States, 307 U. S. 621, 308 U. S. 321, 326). While there aré expressions in the opinion of the court which seem to go so far as to interpret the Federal statute as a substantive law forbidding all disclosure or divulgence, the decision was concerned only with the propriety of the receipt of such intercepted messages in evidence on the trial of a criminal case in a Federal court. The State of New York having provided, by Constitution and statute, certain specific methods by which it may exercise its fundamental power of gathering evidence of criminality and of prosecuting crime, it surely is not to be assumed that Congress intended to circumscribe that power unless it unequivocally indicated such an intent. A Federal *18 statute, it is recognized, must be presumed to be limited in effect to the Federal jurisdiction and not to supersede a State’s exercise of its police power unless there be a clear manifestation to the contrary. (Townsend v. Yeomans, 301 U. S. 441, 454; Atchison Ry. v. Railroad Comm., 283 U. S. 380, 392-393; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 533.)
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thaoheb and, Fuld, JJ., concur; Dye, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.