coa josefina jimenez decision
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
1/16
=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n t he New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 23The Peopl e &c. , Respondent , v.J osef i na J i menez, Appel l ant .
Ri char d J osel son, f or appel l ant .Noah J . Chamoy, f or r espondent .
LI PPMAN, Chi ef J udge:
The prot ect i ons embodi ed i n ar t i cl e I , sect i on 12 of
t he New Yor k St at e Const i t ut i on ser ve t o shi el d ci t i zens f r om
war r ant l ess i nt r usi ons on t hei r pr i vacy i nt er est s, i ncl udi ng
t hei r per sonal ef f ect s. I n t he cont ext of war r ant l ess sear ches
of cl osed cont ai ner s i nci dent t o ar r est , t he Peopl e bear t he
- 1 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
2/16
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
3/16
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
4/16
- 4 - No. 23
numbers associ ated t herewi t h. There were "No Trespassi ng" si gns
post ed i n t he l obby.
At t hi s poi nt , Ser geant Manzar i i nst r uct ed t wo of t heof f i cer s pr esent t o ar r est def endant and Sanchez f or t r espassi ng.
Of f i cer Pagan appr oached def endant whi l e anot her of f i cer pr epar ed
t o arr est Sanchez. Pagan pr oceeded t o r emove f r om def endant ' s
shoul der a l ar ge pur se, whi ch - - f r om Of f i cer Bar nes' st andpoi nt
- - appear ed t o be heavy. Pagan t hen opened t he bag and saw a
handgun i nsi de. Af t er Pagan i nf ormed Manzar i t hat t he bag
cont ai ned a gun and t hat i t appear ed t o be l oaded, t he Sergeant
i nst r uct ed her t o secur e t he weapon. Ther eaf t er , Pagan
handcuf f ed def endant and t r anspor t ed her t o t he pr eci nct f or
pr ocessi ng.
The t r i al cour t deni ed def endant ' s mot i on t o suppress
t he gun, r ul i ng t hat t he sear ch of def endant ' s pur se was
j ust i f i ed f or saf et y r easons. The cour t det er mi ned t hat t he
pur se was not wi t hi n t he pol i ce' s excl usi ve cont r ol at t he t i me
of t he sear ch and t hat t he super i nt endent ' s gest ur es suggest ed
t hat def endant and Sanchez wer e i n some way connect ed t o t he
bur gl ar y. Def endant was convi ct ed, af t er a j ur y t r i al , of t he
count s char ged.
The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med ( 98 AD3d 886 [ 1st Dept
2012] ) , concl udi ng, i n r el evant par t , t hat t he sear ch was pr oper
gi ven t hat " [ t ] he bag was l arge enough t o cont ai n a weapon and
was wi t hi n def endant ' s gr abbabl e ar ea at t he t i me of her ar r est
- 4 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
5/16
- 5 - No. 23
f or cr i mi nal t r espass i n connect i on wi t h t he pol i ce i nvest i gat i on
of a bur gl ar y" ( i d. at 886) . The cour t f ur t her det er mi ned t hat
t he pol i ce l acked excl usi ve cont r ol over t he bag and t hat t he"sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances . . . suppor t a r easonabl e bel i ef i n
t he exi st ence of an exi gency j ust i f yi ng a sear ch of t he bag, even
t hough t he of f i cer s di d not expl i ci t l y t est i f y at t he suppr essi on
hear i ng t hat t hey f ear ed f or t hei r saf et y" ( i d. ) . A J udge of
t hi s Cour t gr ant ed l eave t o appeal ( 20 NY3d 987 [ 2012] ) , and we
now r ever se.
"Al l war r ant l ess sear ches pr esumpt i vel y ar e
unr easonabl e per se, " and, t hus, " [ w] her e a war r ant has not been
obt ai ned, i t i s t he Peopl e who have t he bur den of overcomi ng"
t hi s presumpt i on of unr easonabl eness ( Peopl e v Hodge, 44 NY2d
553, 557 [1978] ; see al so Peopl e v Cal houn, 49 NY2d 398, 402
[ 1980] ) ; Chi mel v Cal i f or ni a, 395 US 752, 762 [ 1969] ) . Under t he
St at e Const i t ut i on, t o j ust i f y a war r ant l ess sear ch i nci dent t o
ar r est , t he Peopl e must sat i sf y t wo separ at e r equi r ement s. The
f i r st i mposes spat i al and t empor al l i mi t at i ons t o ensur e t hat t he
sear ch i s "not si gni f i cant l y di vor ced i n t i me or l ocat i on f r om
t he ar r est " ( Peopl e v Smi t h, 59 NY2d 454, 458 [ 1983] [ quot at i on
marks omi t t ed] ; see al so Peopl e v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 [ 1983] ;
Peopl e v Langen, 60 NY2d 170, 181 [1983] ) .
The second, and equal l y i mpor t ant , predi cat e r equi r es
t he Peopl e t o demonst r ate t he pr esence of exi gent ci r cumst ances
( Gokey, 60 NY2d at 313; Smi t h, 59 NY2d at 458; see al so Langen,
- 5 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
6/16
- 6 - No. 23
60 NY2d at 181) . We have r ecogni zed t wo i nt erest s under l yi ng t he
exi gency r equi r ement : " t he saf et y of t he publ i c and t he ar r est i ng
of f i cer ; and t he pr ot ect i on of evi dence f r om dest r uct i on orconceal ment " ( Gokey, 60 NY2d at 312) . Exi gency must be
af f i r mat i vel y demonst r at ed. Accor di ngl y, even a bag "wi t hi n t he
i mmedi at e cont r ol or ' gr abbabl e ar ea' of a suspect at t he t i me of
hi s arr est may not be subj ect ed t o a sear ch i nci dent t o ar r est ,
unl ess t he ci r cumst ances l eadi ng t o t he ar r est suppor t a
r easonabl e bel i ef t hat t he suspect may gai n possessi on of a
weapon or be abl e t o dest r oy evi dence l ocat ed i n t he bag" ( Gokey,
60 NY2d at 311; see al so Smi t h, 59 NY2d at 458- 459) .
The cr i me f or whi ch t her e i s probabl e cause t o make t he
ar r est may i t sel f pr ovi de t he r equi si t e exi gency ( see e. g. Peopl e
v J ohnson, 86 AD2d 165 [ 1st Dept 1982] , af f d f or t he r easons
st at ed i n t he deci si on bel ow 59 NY2d 1014 [ 1983] ) . I n J ohnson,
pol i ce were respondi ng t o a r adi o run r epor t i ng a "man wi t h a
gun" ( J ohnson, 86 AD2d at 166) . The bui l di ng super i nt endent
i nf or med t hem t hat t he suspect had st r uck hi m i n t he head wi t h a
pi st ol , t r i ed t o shoot hi m, and r et r eat ed t o an apar t ment . Upon
ent er i ng that apar t ment , t he pol i ce di scover ed def endant st andi ng
t wo f eet away f r om a bed on whi ch l ay a bag t hat def endant
i dent i f i ed as hi s own. We hel d t he sear ch t o be val i d because
t he bag was wi t hi n def endant ' s grabbabl e ar ea at t he t i me of t he
ar r est and t he pol i ce r easonabl y bel i eved t hat t he def endant was
ar med.
- 6 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
7/16
- 7 - No. 23
Exi gency may al so der i ve f r om ci r cumst ances ot her t han
t he nat ur e of t he of f ense. I n Smi t h, f or exampl e, t he def endant
was ar r est ed f or t he non- vi ol ent of f ense of t ur nst i l e j umpi ng,but we hel d t hat t he war r ant l ess sear ch of hi s br i ef case was
r easonabl e because he wore a bul l etpr oof vest and deni ed t hi s
f act when quest i oned by pol i ce ( see Smi t h, 59 NY2d at 459) .
However , we reached the opposi t e resul t i n Gokey, where
no exi gency exi st ed t o j ust i f y the sear ch of def endant ' s duf f el
bag. Def endant t her e was ar r est ed f or t wo non- vi ol ent cr i mes and
no l ess t han f i ve of f i cer s wer e on t he scene. I n addi t i on, t he
Peopl e conceded t hat t he pol i ce di d not f ear f or t hei r saf et y,
but merel y sear ched t he bag because t hey suspected i t cont ai ned
dr ugs.
Li kewi se, t he gun here shoul d have been suppr essed
because t he Peopl e f ai l ed t o meet t hei r bur den as t o the exi gency
r equi r ement . Nei t her Ser geant Manzar i nor Of f i cer Bar nes
t est i f i ed t hat he f ear ed f or hi s saf et y or f or t he i nt egr i t y of
any dest r uct i bl e evi dence. Whi l e an of f i cer need not
af f i r mat i vel y t est i f y as t o saf et y concer ns t o est abl i sh
exi gency, such appr ehensi on must be obj ect i vel y r easonabl e ( see
Peopl e v Bat i st a, 88 NY2d 650, 654 [ 1996] ; Peopl e v Moor e, 32
NY2d 67, 72 [ 1973] , cer t deni ed 414 US 1011 [ 1973] ) .
That was not t he case her e. The det ent i on and ar r est
occur r ed wi t h at l east f our ar med of f i cer s pr esent , and possi bl y
as many as ei ght . Mor eover , t her e was no i ndi cat i on t hat t he
- 7 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
8/16
- 8 - No. 23
demeanor or act i ons of ei t her def endant or Sanchez l ent t hem a
t hr eat eni ng appear ance i n any r espect . The t est i mony
demonst r ated t hat def endant was cooperat i ve and of f ered nor esi st ance t o t he r emoval of t he pur se f r om her shoul der , t he
ensui ng f r i sk, or t he pl aci ng of handcuf f s. Fur t her mor e, t he
unr emarkabl e f act t hat a woman' s pur se appear ed heavy i s
i nsuf f i ci ent , on i t s own, t o suppor t a r easonabl e bel i ef t hat i t
cont ai ns ei t her a weapon or dest r uct i bl e evi dence. Nor di d t he
super i nt endent ' s gest ur es and f aci al expr essi ons exhor t i ng t he
pol i ce to st op def endant and her compani on suppl y t he requi si t e
exi gency. Unl i ke t he wi t ness i n J ohnson who made a st atement t o
pol i ce accusi ng def endant of at t acki ng hi m wi t h a gun, t he
super i nt endent ' s si gnal s bor e no i ndi ci a t hat def endant or her
cohort were armed or otherwi se dangerous. Fur t her , t hat Manzar i
t hought i t pr udent t o separ at e her f r om def endant and Sanchez
dur i ng i nvest i gat or y quest i oni ng i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a
par t i cul ar i zed suspi ci on t hat def endant or Sanchez had a weapon.
To t he ext ent t he hear i ng cour t ' s f i ndi ngs wer e t o t he cont r ar y,
t hey ar e unsupport ed by t he r ecor d.
Cr i t i cal l y, t hat t he ar r est occur r ed when pol i ce wer e
r espondi ng t o a r adi o r un f or a bur gl ar y does not t r ansl at e t o
exi gency under t hese ci r cumst ances. 2 There was si mpl y nothi ng
2 The Peopl e' s r el i ance on Peopl e v Mack ( 26 NY2d 311[ 1970] ) t o j ust i f y t he sear ch her e i s unper suasi ve. Mackconcer ned t he pr opr i et y of t he st op- and- f r i sk of a suspect uponr easonabl e suspi ci on t hat he had commi t t ed a bur gl ar y, concl udi ng
- 8 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
9/16
- 9 - No. 23
connect i ng def endant or her compani on t o t he bur gl ary. Besi des a
common et hni ci t y, t here was no evi dence t hat t hey matched the
r adi o r un descr i pt i on of t he bur gl ar y suspect s. Fur t her mor e, t hehear i ng t est i mony demonst r ates t hat def endant was ar r est ed f or
t r espass, wi t hout any reasonabl e basi s t o suspect t hat she
par t i ci pat ed i n t he al l eged bur gl ar y.
I n sum, t he Peopl e' s pr oof f ai l ed t o demonst r at e t hat
t he ci r cumst ances of def endant ' s ar r est gave r i se t o a r easonabl e
bel i ef t hat her pur se cont ai ned ei t her a weapon or dest r uct i bl e
evi dence. Our const i t ut i onal pr i vacy pr ot ect i ons demand a mor e
r obust evi dent i ar y showi ng t o i nvoke t hi s except i on t o t he
war r ant r equi r ement . Absent t he r equi si t e exi gency, t he
war r ant l ess sear ch of def endant ' s pur se i nci dent t o t hat ar r est
was i mproper and t he gun di scovered shoul d have been suppressed.
I n l i ght of our hol di ng, def endant ' s convi ct i on f or
weapons possessi on cannot st and and her convi ct i on f or f i r st -
degr ee cr i mi nal t r espass, pr emi sed on possessi on of a deadl y
weapon, must be reduced t o cr i mi nal t r espass i n t he second degr ee
( Penal Law 140. 15 [ 1] ) .
t hat i t was " unnecessary t o par t i cul ar i ze an i ndependent sour cef or t he bel i ef of danger " t o j ust i f y the f r i sk (Mack, 26 NY2d at
317) . Even assumi ng t he same r at i onal e appl i es i n t he cont ext ofa sear ch i nci dent t o ar r est , t he case i s never t hel ess i napposi t e.I n Mack, t he pol i ce had devel oped a par t i cul ar i zed suspi ci on ast o t hat i ndi vi dual i n connect i on wi t h a bur gl ar y, wher eas her et he pol i ce l acked a r easonabl e basi s t o suspect def endant ofanythi ng mor e t han t r espass. Accor di ngl y, an " i ndependent sour cef or t he bel i ef of danger " was bot h necessar y and absent .
- 9 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
10/16
- 10 - No. 23
We have consi dered and rej ected def endant ' s r emai ni ng
ar gument r egar di ng j ur y sel ect i on.
Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul dbe r ever sed, def endant ' s mot i on t o suppr ess grant ed, t he
convi ct i on of cr i mi nal possessi on of a weapon i n the second
degr ee vacat ed and t hat count of t he i ndi ct ment di smi ssed, t he
convi ct i on of cr i mi nal t r espass i n t he f i r st degr ee r educed t o
cr i mi nal t r espass i n t he second degr ee and t he mat t er r emi t t ed t o
Supr eme Cour t f or r esent enci ng.
- 10 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
11/16
Peopl e v J osef i na J i mi nez
No. 23
ABDUS- SALAAM, J . ( di ssent i ng i n par t ) :
Whet her t he pol i ce act ed r easonabl y i n conduct i ng t he
war r ant l ess sear ch of def endant ' s handbag i nvol ves " mi xed
quest i ons of l aw and f act " ( Peopl e v Gr eeni dge, 91 NY2d 967, 969
[ 1998] ) and our r evi ew i s t her ef or e " l i mi t ed t o whet her t her e i s
r ecor d suppor t f or t he det er mi nat i ons of t he cour t s bel ow"
( Peopl e v Wheel er , 2 NY3d 370, 373 [ 2004] ) . Cont r ary t o t he
maj or i t y, I concl ude t hat t her e i s r ecor d suppor t f or t he
unani mous f i ndi ngs of t he l ower cour t s t hat t he sear ch her e was
r easonabl e under al l of t he ci r cumst ances. Accor di ngl y, I woul d
af f i r m t he convi ct i on.
To summar i ze, t he pol i ce wer e r espondi ng t o a di spat ch
of a bur gl ar y i n pr ogr ess on t he f i f t h f l oor of a r esi dent i al
bui l di ng. As t hey ent ered t he l obby, t hey saw def endant and her
mal e compani on exi t i ng a st ai r wel l i nt o t he l obby. The bui l di ng
super i nt endent made a f ace and gest ur ed t o t he pol i ce, poi nt i ng
out t hese t wo i ndi vi dual s. When t he pol i ce quest i oned def endant
as t o what she was doi ng i n t he bui l di ng, def endant f i r st cl ai med
t hat she was vi si t i ng a f r i end, but coul d not name t he f r i end.
Def endant t hen changed her st ory, sayi ng t hat she was i n sear ch
- 1 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
12/16
- 2 - No. 23
of a notary, but coul d not name t he notary or gi ve an apart ment
number f or t he notary. The pol i ce, who were begi nni ng t he pr ocess
of i nvest i gat i ng t he bur gl ar y on t he f i f t h f l oor , deci ded t oar r est def endant f or t r espass. Whi l e handcuf f i ng def endant , t he
pol i ce not i ced t hat def endant had a handbag on her shoul der t hat
was wei ghted down, and whi ch def endant was hol di ng t i ght l y t o her
body. The pol i ce opened t he handbag and f ound a l oaded handgun.
The hear i ng cour t deni ed def endant ' s mot i on t o suppress
t he f i r ear m, f i ndi ng t hat t he of f i cer s suspect ed t hat def endant
and her compani on were connect ed i n some way t o t he bur gl ary, and
t hat def endant ' s handbag, whi ch was i n her i mmedi ate cont r ol and
"gr abbabl e space, " pr esent ed a saf et y i ssue f or t he ar r est i ng
of f i cer . The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med, concl udi ng t hat "[ t ] he
sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances her e suppor t a reasonabl e bel i ef i n t he
exi st ence of an exi gency j ust i f yi ng a sear ch of t he bag" ( 98 AD3d
886 [ 1st Dept 2012] ) .
The r easonabl eness of each search i nci dent t o ar r est
must "be determi ned on t he basi s of t he f act s and ci r cumst ances
of t he part i cul ar case" ( Peopl e v Smi t h, 59 NY2d 454, 457
[ 1989] ) . A war r ant l ess sear ch i s j ust i f i ed by exi gent
ci r cumst ances such as t he saf et y of t he ar r est i ng of f i cer ( Peopl e
v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 [ 1983] ) . I n concl udi ng t hat t he
weapon shoul d have been suppr essed, t he maj or i t y has, i n my vi ew,
mer el y di f f er ed wi t h t he l ower cour t s as t o t he r easonabl e
i nf erences t hat may be dr awn based upon t hese f act s, r eached i t s
- 2 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
13/16
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
14/16
- 4 - No. 23
deci ded t o arr est her based upon her evasi ve and unt r ut hf ul
answer s, t hey had not even made i t up t o t he f i f t h f l oor t o
compl et e t hei r i nvest i gat i on of t he r epor t ed bur gl ar y and t hushad no pr obabl e cause t o ar r est her f or bur gl ar y. But t hey di d
have r eason, by vi r t ue of t he super i nt endent ' s act i ons, t o
suspect def endant , and def endant onl y hei ght ened t hei r suspi ci ons
by her unsat i sf act or y answer s t o t hei r quest i ons. Fur t hermore, as
t he pol i ce wer e ar r est i ng def endant , t hey not i ced that she was
cl ut chi ng a heavy handbag t i ght l y agai nst her body. Reasonabl e
mi nds coul d i nf er t hat t he pol i ce suspect ed def endant of bei ng
i nvol ved i n t he bur gl ar y and t hat her heavy handbag, hel d t i ght l y
agai nst her body, gave r i se t o an obj ect i ve appr ehensi on t hat
def endant mi ght have a weapon t hat pr esent ed a saf ety r i sk t o t he
of f i cer s ( see gener al l y Br i gham Ci t y, Ut ah v. St uar t , 547 US 398,
403 [2006] , quot i ng Mi ncey v. Ar i zona, 437 US 385, 393- 394 [1978]
[ ( W) ar r ant s are gener al l y requi r ed t o sear ch a per son' s home or
hi s per son unl ess t he exi genci es of t he si t uat i on make t he
needs of l aw enf orcement so compel l i ng t hat t he warr ant l ess
sear ch i s obj ect i vel y r easonabl e under t he Four t h Amendment ] ) .
Here, as i n Peopl e v Smi t h ( 59 NY2d 454) , t he cr i me f or
whi ch def endant was bei ng ar r est ed was not suggest i ve of a
weapon, but t he pol i ce had r eason t o suspect def endant of a cr i me
t hat coul d i ndeed i nvol ve a weapon ( see Penal Law 140. 30
[ bur gl ar y i n t he f i r st degr ee] ) , and def endant was hol di ng a bag
t hat "was r eadi l y accessi bl e t o [ her ] and was of suf f i ci ent si ze
- 4 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
15/16
- 5 - No. 23
t o cont ai n a weapon" ( 59 NY2d at 459) . Moreover , l i ke Smi t h,
def endant l i ed t o t he pol i ce, whi ch r easonabl y rai sed t hei r
suspi ci on ( see i d. ) . Thi s case i s di st i ngui shabl e f r om Peopl e vGokey ( 60 NY2d 309) wher e we suppressed mar i j uana sei zed f r om
def endant ' s duf f el bag dur i ng a war r ant l ess sear ch i nci dent t o
ar r est not wi t hst andi ng t hat t he duf f el bag was wi t hi n def endant ' s
"gr abbabl e ar ea" ( 60 NY2d at 312) . I n f i ndi ng t hat t her e was no
exi gency t o j ust i f y t he sear ch i n Gokey, we not ed t hat " t he
pol i ce sought def endant ' s ar r est f or t wo nonvi ol ent cr i mes and
t he Peopl e concede[ d] t hat ' i n al l f r ankness t her e was no
i mmedi at e suspi ci on by t he pol i ce of f i cer s t hat t he def endant was
i n f act armed' " ( i d. at 313) . Fur t her , t he pol i ce had not sei zed
t he bag f r om Gokey upon hi s ar r est "but per mi t t ed hi m t o keep t he
bag bet ween hi s l egs whi l e he was f r i sked" ( i d. ) . I n t hi s case,
t here was no such concessi on by t he Peopl e, and def endant ' s
handbag was sei zed and sear ched cont empor aneousl y wi t h her
arr est .
Addi t i onal l y, whi l e t he maj or i t y not es t hat sever al
of f i cer s r esponded t o t he r adi o r un, and t hat def endant of f er ed
no r esi st ance t o t he ar r est , t he l oaded f i r ear m was st i l l wi t hi n
def endant ' s r each, and t he pr esence of a number of of f i cer s woul d
not have pr event ed her f r om f i r i ng t he gun at t hem. Agai n, a
r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he r equi si t e exi gency exi st ed can be
dr awn f r om t he f act s establ i shed at t he suppr essi on hear i ng.
I n sum, t he determi nat i on t o deny def endant ' s mot i on t o
- 5 -
-
8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision
16/16
- 6 - No. 23
suppr ess t he handgun i nvol ved "mi xed quest i ons of l aw and f act
t hat ar e suppor t ed by evi dence i n t he recor d" and ar e
consequent l y beyond f ur t her r evi ew by thi s Cour t ( Gr eeni dge, 91NY2d at 969) . Accor di ngl y, I woul d af f i r m t he Appel l at e Di vi si on
or der sust ai ni ng def endant ' s convi ct i on.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Or der r ever sed, def endant ' s mot i on t o suppr ess grant ed, t heconvi ct i on of second- degr ee cr i mi nal possessi on of a weaponvacat ed and t hat count of t he i ndi ct ment di smi ssed, t heconvi ct i on of cr i mi nal t r espass i n t he f i r st degr ee r educed t ocr i mi nal t r espass i n t he second degr ee and case r emi t t ed t o
Supr eme Cour t , Br onx Count y f or r esent enci ng. Opi ni on by Chi efJ udge Li ppman. J udges Gr af f eo, Smi t h and Ri ver a concur . J udgeAbdus- Sal aam di ssent s and vot es t o af f i r m i n an opi ni on i n whi chJ udges Read and Pi got t concur .
Deci ded Febr uary 25, 2014
- 6 -