Search of Backpack Which Was No Longer In Defendant’s Possession, After Defendant Had Been Handcuffed, Justified by Exigent Circumstances
In finding the suppression motion was properly denied. The Second Department explained the law which justified the pre-arrest detention of the defendant and the search of defendant’s backpack after defendant was handcuffed. The officer received a report of a shooting at a residence. The officer knew the defendant lived at the residence and saw blood on defendant’s clothes. The defendant was handcuffed and his backpack was placed on a car about three feet away. After the defendant was handcuffed he told the officer his brother had been shot and the guns were in the backpack. At that point the officer had probable cause to arrest for criminal possession of a weapon and could search the backpack incident to arrest due to exigent circumstances:
Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence recovered incident to his arrest. “On a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance” … . “Under the State Constitution, an individual’s right of privacy in his or her effects dictates that a warrantless search incident to arrest be deemed unreasonable unless justified by the presence of exigent circumstances” … . For “compelling reasons,” including the safety of the officers or the public, “a search not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest’ may be conducted even though the arrested person has been subdued and his closed container is within the exclusive control of the police” … . People v Alvarado, 2015 NY Slip Op 01955, 2nd Dept 3-11-15