| People v Diaz |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03013 [149 AD3d 974] |
| April 19, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Emmanuel Diaz, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Howard B.Goodman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.),rendered February 24, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the firstdegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a resultof his trial counsel's failure to request that the jury be charged on the affirmative defense torobbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree that the object displayed was not aloaded weapon from which a shot, capable of producing death or other serious physical injury,could be discharged (see Penal Law §§ 140.30 [4]; 160.15 [4]; People v Miaram, 97 AD3d 606,607 [2012]). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, his trial counsel's decision not torequest an instruction on that affirmative defense reflected a legitimate trial strategy of areasonably competent attorney (seePeople v Casseus, 120 AD3d 828, 829 [2014]). Defense counsel pursued amisidentification defense at trial, which would have been undermined had defense counsel put oninconsistent evidence that, while the defendant was present during the incident, the weapon hedisplayed was not loaded and operable (see People v Howard, 22 NY3d 388, 401 [2013]; see also People v Gordon, 92 AD3d580, 581 [2012]). Further, the Supreme Court was not required to give the charge, suasponte, since such an instruction would have interfered with the defendant's theory of the case(see People v Acevedo, 84 AD3d1390, 1391 [2011]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to counsel under the Federal andState Constitutions by the admission into evidence of recorded telephone calls he made duringhis detention at Rikers Island Correctional Facility (hereinafter Rikers) is without merit (see People v Johnson, 27 NY3d199, 205-206 [2016]; People vRoberts, 139 AD3d 985, 986 [2016]).
Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the recordings of histelephone calls from Rikers were improperly admitted into evidence at trial because he did notconsent to the dissemination of the recordings by the New York City Department of Correction(hereinafter the DOC) to the prosecution. The defendant does not identify any statutory orconstitutional violation with respect to the admission of the recordings. Instead, the defendantargues [*2]that the notice he received that his telephone callswould be monitored and recorded provided no basis to infer that he consented to the distributionof those recordings to the prosecution, and that any consent to the monitoring and recording ofhis calls was for the limited purpose of ensuring prison security.
"A party's consent to the taping of his [or her] telephone calls can be inferred from his [orher] knowledge that such conversations would be monitored" (People v Jackson, 125 AD3d 1002,1004 [2015]; see People v Koonce,111 AD3d 1277, 1279 [2013]; Curley v Board of Trustees of Vil. of Suffern, 213AD2d 583, 583 [1995]; United States v Amen, 831 F2d 373, 378-379 [2d Cir 1987]).Here, the defendant impliedly consented to the monitoring and recording of his telephoneconversations by using the prison telephones despite being notified that such calls were beingmonitored (see People v Jackson, 125 AD3d at 1004; United States v Workman,80 F3d 688, 693-694 [2d Cir 1996]; United States v Amen, 831 F2d at 379). The recordreflects that the defendant was on notice from several sources of the prison's policy of monitoringand recording inmate telephone conversations, including the inmate handbook, signs posted nextto the telephones, and a recorded message which plays prior to each telephone call. In light ofthese notifications, "it was no longer reasonable for [the defendant] to presume an expectation ofprivacy as to the content of those telephone conversations" (United States v Busch, 2013US Dist LEXIS 188419, *165 [WD NY, July 15, 2013, No. 09CR331A]; see United States vShavers, 693 F3d 363, 389-390 [3d Cir 2012], vacated and remanded on othergrounds 570 US &mdash, 133 S Ct 2877 [2013]). Notably, the defendant indicated duringcertain of the recorded calls that he was hesitant about discussing the details of the crime over thetelephone. Although the inmate handbook provides that "all calls may be recorded for securitypurposes with the exception of privileged calls," the signs posted next to the telephones broadlystate that "[i]nmate telephone conversations are subject to electronic monitoring and/or recordingin accordance with department policy," and that "[a]n inmate's use of [institutional] telephonesconstitutes consent to this monitoring and/or recording." Additionally, an employee of the DOCtestified that prior to each call, an inmate will hear a recorded message which states that the callmay be recorded and monitored. Thus, contrary to the defendant's contention, the notifications, asa whole, did not limit the scope of the defendant's consent to the monitoring and recording of histelephone calls solely for security purposes (see United States v Faulkner, 439 F3d 1221,1223-1224 [10th Cir 2006]; United States v Peoples, 71 F Supp 2d 967, 972, 979 [WDMo 1999]).
We note that "convicted prisoners do not forfeit all constitutional protections by reason oftheir conviction and confinement in prison," and certainly "pretrial detainees, who have not beenconvicted of any crimes, retain at least those constitutional rights that . . . areenjoyed by convicted prisoners" (Bell v Wolfish, 441 US 520, 545 [1979]). Since anyconcern that the notice provided to inmates by the DOC is inadequate can be readily amelioratedby an express notification that the recorded calls may be turned over to the District Attorney, thebetter practice going forward may be for the DOC to include such a warning (cf. People vJohnson, 27 NY3d at 207-208). Nevertheless, the absence of such a warning does not renderthe calls inadmissible (see People v Koonce, 111 AD3d at 1279; United States vGreen, 2016 WL 3610331, *11, *13-14, 2016 US Dist LEXIS 87388, *37, *42-43 [WD NY,July 6, 2016, No. 12-CR-83S]; United States v Busch, 2013 US Dist LEXIS 188419,*164; United States v Green, 842 F Supp 68, 71-72 [WD NY 1994], affd sub nom.United States v Workman, 80 F3d 688 [2d Cir 1996]). Rather, the trial court must weigh theprobative value of the recordings against the potential for prejudice to the defendant (see generally People v Harris, 26 NY3d1, 5 [2015]). "[D]ue to the possibility of prejudice inherent in the prosecutor's use of inmaterecordings, the trial judge's role as gatekeeper remains unchanged and necessary to ensurecompliance with constitutional mandates and the usual rules of evidence and criminal procedure"(People v Johnson, 27 NY3d at 208).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Roman, Cohen and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Hall, J.P., dissents, and votes to reverse the judgment, on the law, and order a new trial, withthe following memorandum: Pursuant to the Rules of the City of New York and an OperationsOrder implemented by the New York City Department of Correction (hereinafter the DOC), therespective New York City District Attorneys' Offices have essentially unfettered access to therecordings of nonpriviledged telephone calls made by pretrial detainees at pretrial detentionfacilities, such as Rikers Island Correctional Facility (hereinafter Rikers) (see People v Johnson, 27 NY3d199, 203-204 [2016]). This arrangement between the DOC and the District Attorneys'Offices presents a fundamentally unfair situation to pretrial detainees. In short, while pretrialdetainees are notified that telephone calls made from institutional telephone lines may berecorded and monitored, they are not informed that the recordings of such calls may bedistributed to the prosecutors handling their cases, and that information in the calls can be usedagainst them at their criminal trials. I share Judge Pigott's concern, expressed in his concurrencein Johnson, that this arrangement "creates a serious potential for abuse and mayundermine the constitutional rights of defendants who are financially unable to make bail.Something needs to change" (id. at 208 [Pigott, J., concurring]).
The current arrangement between the DOC and the District Attorneys' Offices simply adds tothe well-documented disparities between defendants who can afford to make bail and are atliberty while awaiting trial, and those who cannot afford to make bail and are in pretrial detentionfacilities. "A defendant free on bail or on his [or her] own recognizance can . . .make good use of that liberty by consulting and participating fully with counsel intime-consuming preparations for trial, including tracking down witnesses and evidentiary leads"(id. at 210). The detained suspect, however, cannot engage in such pretrial preparations."Moreover, any telephone conversations with family members or potential witnesses are nowturned over to the prosecution for it to review. Not only do prosecutors obtain criticalinformation about key defense witnesses and possible defenses well before those materials wouldhave been disclosed, but they can also use innocuous details to their advantage in negotiatingplea deals, for example, by combing through a detainee's recorded conversations for informationabout his [or her] financial limitations or family obligations" (id.).
I am seriously troubled by the fact that pretrial detainees cannot speak to family memberswithout members of the District Attorneys' Offices listening in. This is especially egregiouswhere pretrial detainees are never informed that the recordings of such telephone calls may beturned over to the prosecution.
Assistant District Attorneys regularly seek to introduce at trial recordings of telephone callsmade by pretrial detainees as affirmative evidence of their guilt, principally on the basis ofconsent. According to the Assistant District Attorneys, since the pretrial detainees consented tothe monitoring and recording of such telephone calls, the recordings of the calls may properly beadmitted into evidence. However, consent to the monitoring and recording of a telephone calldoes not equate to an implied consent to have the recording of the call handed over to theprosecution.
In this case, I agree with the majority that the defendant impliedly consented to themonitoring and recording of his telephone conversations by using the telephones at Rikers. Asthe majority notes, the defendant was informed that his telephone calls from institutionaltelephones at Rikers would be recorded and monitored, and that his use of those telephonesconstituted consent to such recording and monitoring. However, the defendant was neverinformed that the recordings of his telephone calls would be provided to the prosecutor handlinghis case. Consequently, the defendant never expressly or impliedly consented to the recordings ofthose calls being disseminated to the prosecutor for potential use at his criminal trial on thismatter.
While the defendant admittedly "had no reason to expect privacy in his calls, that does notequate to any consent that the agents and prosecutors working on this case would gain access" tothe calls (United States v Mitan, 2009 WL 3081727, *4, 2009 US Dist LEXIS 88886, *11[ED Pa, Sept. 25, 2009, Nos. 08-760-1, 08-760-2], 499 Fed Appx 187 [3d Cir 2012]). Indeed,there is "a major distinction between prison authorities having access to prisoners' phone calls forpurposes of prison security and discipline, and the prosecutors of that pretrial prisoner having thesame access for purposes of gaining advance knowledge of the pretrial prisoner's trial strategyand potential witnesses" (2009 WL 3081727, *4, 2009 US Dist LEXIS 88886, *11; seePeople v Johnson, 27 NY3d at 209 [Pigott, J., concurring]).
[*3] In my view, the defendant's consent was limited to themonitoring and recording of his telephone calls. This limited consent did not extend to thedissemination of the recordings of those calls to the prosecutor handling his case. In this context,the defendant's consent can be no broader than the notice provided to him (cf. Watkins v L.M.Berry & Co., 704 F2d 577, 581 [11th Cir 1983]).
Since the defendant did not impliedly consent to the dissemination of the recordings of histelephone calls to the prosecution, the recordings of the calls were improperly admitted intoevidence. This error was not harmless, as there is a significant probability that the error mighthave contributed to the defendant's convictions (see People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969, 970[1982]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
Pretrial detainees are presumed innocent, as they have not yet been convicted of any crime.Moreover, while the DOC has a legitimate interest in maintaining the safety and security of itsdetention facilities, it has no legitimate interest in harvesting evidence for the prosecution (seePeople v Johnson, 27 NY3d at 208-209). Under these circumstances, it is not simply a betterpractice for the DOC to provide express notification to pretrial detainees that recorded telephonecalls may be turned over to the prosecution; such notice is required for the proper admission ofthese recordings into evidence at a criminal trial.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent, and vote to reverse the judgment and order a newtrial.