Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Suppressing evidence in a disciplinary action

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Suppressing evidence in a disciplinary action
Section 75 hearing officer's findings, received May 8, 2002

As announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Weeks v United States, 232 US 383 and Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643, evidence obtained by police officers found to have been the fruit of an unlawful search cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. Does this rule apply in administrative disciplinary actions taken against employees?

This was one of the issues addressed by Civil Service Law Section 75 Hearing Officer Howard A. Rubenstein in the course of his considering disciplinary charges filed against Michael Lennon by the North Rockland Central School District.

The School District charged Lennon with misconduct and incompetence, alleging that on or about February 15, 2002, he possessed cocaine on school grounds.

Lennon, a maintenance mechanic employed by the School District, was stopped by Police Detective Thomas Crowe at the entrance to one of the District's schools. Crowe testified that he asked Lennon if he could search his car and Lennon agreed. Crowe found material that he identified as cocaine and placed Lennon under arrest.

Lennon essentially challenged the admission of Crowe's testimony concerning the co­caine found in his car, presumably on the theory that it was the product of an unlawful search and "any evidence of illegal drugs obtained as a result of the search should not be admitted into the record."

Rubenstein noted that although the issue of whether or not the search of Lennon's car was a constitutionally valid search no doubt may be a significant issue if "raised in Lennon's criminal trial," this issue may not be relevant in a civil administrative proceed­ing involving an employer taking administrative disciplinary action against an employee.

In the Boyd case [Boyd v Constantine, 81 NY2d 189] the Court of Appeals considered an appeal by a State Police Officer who was found guilty of disciplinary charges based on the introduction of "improperly obtained evidence of possession of marijuana by local police authorities."

Note: Criminal charges against Boyd had been earlier dismissed after a Supreme Court justice ruled that the evidence against him obtained by Buffalo police officers was the result of an unlawful search.

The Court of Appeals said that the "improperly obtained" evidence could be used in the administrative disciplinary action because the local police authorities who committed the improper search were not acting as agents of the Division of the State Police and that the Division of State Police was not seeking to discipline one of its members by relying on the unlawful acts of its own agents.

Rubenstein concluded that the School District did not commit any search, legal or other­wise, nor was Detective Crowe acting as the agent of the District when he searched Lennon's car and found the cocaine.

The hearing officer said that in the Boyd case the Court of Appeals "adopted the principle that improperly obtained evidence may be admissible in administrative proceedings which are not concerned with criminal law or its enforcement."

Based on the record, Rubenstein recommended that Lennon be found guilty of the charge of possessing cocaine on school grounds and that his employment with the School Dis­trict be terminated.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 11, 2008 (boomark / email).