Selected written opinions may be accessed through pacer.

Register online for your free PACER account by contacting the national PACER Service Center, or by calling the PACER Service Center at (800) 676-6856 or (210) 301-6440.

Selected written opinions from New York Eastern District Court and participating courts are also available for free from the U.S. Government Printing Office United States Courts Opinion website. No account is required to access these opinions.



Judge Jack B. Weinstein

The decision grants in part, and denies in part, motions by two defendants to suppress GPS location data and wiretapped conversations collected during an investigation of a narcotics trafficking ring.  
The ankle of one of the defendants, as a condition of state parole, was strapped with a GPS tracking device for over two years.  The data it generated was shared with federal authorities and used to build a case against many defendants.  Judge Weinstein questions whether this search is constitutional, discussing the precedents that underpin the “special needs” exception applicable to warrantless searches of parolees.  
The opinion establishes a framework for determining whether such a search, when conducted in coordination with agencies with a general law enforcement objective, is permissible, noting: “The state cannot use a parolee as a sort of fly paper, trailing him around the community for years, trolling for criminals.”  
The opinion also addresses a motion to suppress conversations recorded pursuant to a judicially-authorized wiretap.  The affidavit of a federal law enforcement agent supporting the wiretap contained statements that the affiant knew were false.  Instead of resorting to the familiar Franks v. Delaware analysis to determine whether the fruits of that wiretap should be excluded, Judge Weinstein holds that suppression is warranted because it is within the court’s inherent authority to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings through excluding unlawfully gathered evidence.  He wrote: “Wiretap applications are made ex parte.  Judges rely on the absolute fidelity of the government agents and prosecutors who swear to affidavits and answer questions before the court in chambers attesting to the facts necessary to obtain a wiretap… Knowingly false statements cannot be tolerated, especially if those statements are made at proceedings where the courts have little choice but to take the government at its word.”
This case challenges the validity of a "stranger-owned life insurance" (STOLI) issued by Lincoln Benefit Life Company ("LBL"). LBL commenced a declaratory judgment action in the district court in New Jersey seeking to have two of its life insurance policies declared invalid. AEI Life, LLC ("AEI"), which now owns one of the policies as beneficiary, filed an action in this court for a declaration of validity of the policy. 
A full bench trial was held on the question of whether New York or New Jersey substantive law applies. New York life insurance incontestability law renders void after two years any defense that a policy was invalid at its inception. Under New Jersey law, a policy may be voided at any time if fraud was committed in the policy application.
Using the "center of gravity" test, Judge Weinstein concluded that every contact of significance was with New York. The policy is therefore incontestable and enforceable under New York law. 
The equities favored the new beneficiary who purchased the policy for value.