What authority does a police officer have to seize a bag containing a hypodermic needle?

The established rule of law is, as set forth in Marron v. United States (supra, p. 196, 48 S.Ct. p. 76), that in the execution of a search warrant, the police officer's authority flows only from the

Page 814

He could not assume the role of the court by examining the papers upon which the search warrant was granted to extend his own authority with respect to articles not listed in the warrant, and, as stated in Dombrowski v. Cady (supra), after the initial purpose of the search warrant has been fulfilled by search, the place designated for the articles listed in the warrant, 'There was no continuing authority under the warrant[72 Misc.2d 160] * * *' to seize other items situated in the same place which may be related to the case.

The People also advance the claim that the seizure of the bag, and its contents of 27 articles of dental equipment, including a hypodermic needle, was justified because the detective recognized their 'evidentiary value'. Here, again, it must be said that it is not for the detective, searching under a warrant, to pick and choose what he shall retain after seizing a multitude of unlisted items. To permit this would be to clothe him with the power of the court in direct contravention of the admonition contained in McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455--456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153, (and cited with approval in Chimel v. California (395 U.S. 752, 761, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2039, supra), as follows: