You are here: / SEARCHES

Tag Archive for: SEARCHES

,

Even If Initial Frisk of Defendant Was Unlawful, the Defendant’s Pushing the Officer and Running Away Justified the Defendant’s Arrest (for Harassment of the Officer) and Seizure of Drugs

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was properly denied.  Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police.  A police officer told defendant to get out of the vehicle and proceeded to frisk him.  The defendant then pushed the officer and ran away.  He was captured and drugs were subsequently found.  The Fourth Department determined that, even if the frisk was unlawful, the defendant’s pushing the officer and running away were not precipitated by the frisk:

Even assuming, arguendo, that the frisk was unlawful, we conclude that defendant’s act of pushing the frisking officer was not “spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality . . . [but] was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and thus attenuated from it” … . We therefore conclude that there was probable cause for defendant’s subsequent arrest for harassment of the frisking officer … . Consequently, the drugs seized from defendant’s person and the backseat of the patrol car were discovered incident to a lawful arrest … . People v Fox, 2015 NY Slip Op 00034, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Even Though Probable Cause for a DWI Arrest Existed, the Arresting Officer Testified He Was Not Going to Arrest the Defendant Until He Found a Switchblade Knife During a Pat-Down Search—Therefore the Search Could Not Be Justified As a Search Incident to Arrest and the Switchblade Should Have Been Suppressed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that a switch-blade found in a pat-down search of the defendant after a vehicle stop should have been suppressed. The way the defendant was driving and the officer’s observations of defendant after the stop provided probable cause for a DWI arrest.  However, at the suppression hearing, the arresting officer (Merino) testified that he was not going to arrest the defendant prior to the pat-down search and only arrested him because the knife was found.  The Court of Appeals held that the search, therefore, could not be a “search incident to arrest” and could not be otherwise justified:

It is not disputed that, before conducting the search, Merino could lawfully have arrested defendant for driving while intoxicated. And it is clear that the search was not unlawful solely because it preceded the arrest, since the two events were substantially contemporaneous (see Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 US 98, 111 [1980] [“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search . . ., we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa”]; People Evans, 43 NY2d 160, 166 [1977] [“The fact that the search precedes the formal arrest is irrelevant as long as the search and arrest are nearly simultaneous so as to constitute one event”]). Nor is it decisive that the police chose to predicate the arrest on the possession of a weapon, rather than on driving while intoxicated (see Devenpeck v Alford, 543 US 146 [2004]). The problem is that, as Merino testified, but for the search there would have been no arrest at all.

Where that is true, to say that the search was incident to the arrest does not make sense. It is irrelevant that, because probable cause existed, there could have been an arrest without a search. A search must be incident to an actual arrest, not just to probable cause that might have led to an arrest, but did not … . People v Reid, 2014 NY Slip Op 08759, CtApp 12-16-14

 

,

Gun Found In Juvenile’s Shoe (After Juvenile Was Told to Remove His Shoes) Should Have Been Suppressed—Juvenile Could Not Be Arrested and Detained for a Violation (Disorderly Conduct Is Not a Crime) and Nothing More than a Frisk Is Justified During a Temporary Detention Pending the Arrival of a Juvenile’s Parents

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the search of the 15-year-old appellant (Jamal) was illegal and the gun found in appellant's shoe should have been suppressed.  The appellant, who had already been searched twice, was being wrongfully detained on a disorderly conduct charge (a violation, not a crime) at the time he was told to take off his shoes:

CPL 140.10 permits a police officer to arrest a person for any “offense” that is committed in the officer's presence. The term “offense” is broadly defined to include conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or a fine is provided by state or local law (see Penal Law § 10.00 [1]). Family Court Act § 305.2(2), however, provides that “[a]n officer may take a child under the age of sixteen into custody without a warrant in cases in which he [or she] may arrest a person for a crime . . . .” The term “crime” includes only misdemeanors and felonies, not violations (see Penal Law § 10.00[6]). Accordingly, a search may be conducted where a juvenile is taken into custody for conduct which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime … . As disorderly conduct is not a crime, Family Court Act § 305.2(2) prohibited Jamal's warrantless arrest for that offense … . Based on this record, it is clear that upon learning that Jamal was a juvenile the police nonetheless kept him under arrest with no statutory authority for doing so. * * *

…[W]hen Jamal was being held pending his parents' arrival, he was under temporary detention as opposed to arrest. “A temporary detention justifies only a frisk, not a full-fledged search” … . The removal of Jamal's shoes was far more intrusive than a frisk or a patdown … . We find no merit to the presentment agency's argument that safety required the removal of Jamal's shoes. “The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness . . .” … . Considerations of safety provide no justification in this case where Jamal was continuously in police custody and had been searched twice before being directed to remove his shoes. It is of no moment that Jamal was directed to remove his shoes pursuant to an alleged standard procedure. “[A]n unreasonable search is not somehow rendered reasonable, and therefore constitutionally permissible, by the mere fact that a departmental procedure was followed” … . The standard of reasonableness still applies … . We recognize that in appropriate cases law enforcement officers are authorized to employ reasonable measures to guard against detainees' self-infliction of harm. Such reasonable measures may include the removal of belts and shoelaces … . Nonetheless, the removal of Jamal's shoes cannot be justified as a protective measure where, as noted above, he had been twice searched by police officers who had no reason to expect that he had “anything on him” or otherwise posed a danger. Matter of Jamal S, 2014 NY Slip Op 08470, 1st Dept 12-4-14

 

,

Defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights Violated When Officer Opened an Envelope Containing Defendant’s Personal Belongings at the Hospital Where Defendant Was Being Treated—The Fact that the Officer Thought Defendant Was a Crime Victim at the Time Does Not Matter—The Personal Belongings, Which Included Evidence of a Robbery, Should Have Been Suppressed

The Second Department determined the contents of an envelope containing defendant’s personal belongings, which included evidence of a robbery of which defendant was convicted, should have been suppressed.  The defendant was in the hospital when the police officer asked for identification.  The defendant indicated his belongings had been taken by the hospital.  The officer then retrieved the envelope from the hospital security office and opened it.  The Second Department determined that the fact that the officer thought the defendant was a crime victim (he had been stabbed) at the time he opened the envelope did not change the fact that the defendant’s fourth amendment rights were thereby violated:

“On a motion by a defendant to suppress physical evidence, the People have the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance” … . The People failed to meet their burden in this instance.

Initially, we note that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his personal belongings, notwithstanding the fact that he was a hospital patient and his belongings were being temporarily stored in the hospital’s security office … . In addition, the fact that the officer perceived the defendant to be a victim rather than a suspect did not strip the defendant of Fourth Amendment protection … . People v Alston, 2014 NY Slip Op 08344, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Officer Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion Defendant Posed a Danger—Pat-Down Search Triggered by a Bulge In Defendant’s Waistband Was Not Justified Under the DeBour Test

The Second Department determined the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant posed a threat to his safety when he patted defendant down and retrieved a weapon from defendant’s waistband.  Defendant, who was first observed merely standing and smoking a cigarette, had walked away from the police, turned his back to them and made a motion as if shoving something into his front waistband.  The officer, seeing the bulge in defendant’s waistband, immediately patted the defendant down:

In People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210), the Court of Appeals established a “graduated four-level test for evaluating street encounters initiated by the police” … . The first level permits a police officer to request information from an individual, and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality … . The second level, known as the “common-law right of inquiry,” requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and permits a somewhat greater intrusion short of a forcible seizure … . The third level permits a seizure, meaning that a police officer may forcibly stop and detain an individual, based upon a reasonable suspicion that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, a crime … . Finally, the fourth level authorizes an arrest based on probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony or misdemeanor … .

Here, those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the gun and his statements should have been granted. Assuming that Officer Castillo was justified in conducting a common-law inquiry, he lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant posed a threat to his safety when he conducted a pat-down search of the bulge in his waistband … . The police were not responding to a report of a crime involving a weapon and, at most, suspected the defendant of being involved in the burglary of an abandoned house … . In addition, “[a]n unidentifiable bulge which is readily susceptible of an innocent as well as a guilty explanation’ is not sufficient to justify a pat-down search” … . The waistband bulge as described by Officer Castillo only permitted him to ask the defendant if he was carrying a weapon based on a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot … . Moreover, Officer Castillo did not testify that the defendant, upon turning to face the officers, reached for or had his hand on the bulge, or made any threatening or menacing gesture … . Under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Castillo was not justified in searching the defendant’s waistband bulge as a minimally intrusive self-protective measure. Accordingly, the hearing court should have granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the physical evidence and his subsequent statements to law enforcement officials. Since, in the absence of the suppressed evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt, the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Harris, 2014 NY Slip Op 08351, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid/The Way Defendant Was Holding a Cigarette Justified the Vehicle Stop/No Probable Cause for Warrantless Search of Trunk of Defendant’s Car

The First Department determined (1) the waiver of appeal, which included a signed written waiver, was not valid; (2) the stop of defendant’s vehicle, the removal of the occupants, and the search of the interior of the car was justified by the police officer’s belief defendant was smoking a marijuana cigarette held between his thumb and index finger and the observation of an empty glassine envelope; and (3) the warrantless search of the trunk where ecstasy was found was not justified by probable cause:

A waiver of the right to appeal is not effective unless it is apparent from the record that it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily … . For a waiver to be effective, the record must demonstrate that the defendant has a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver …, including an understanding “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty … .

Here, the court never adequately explained the nature of the waiver, the rights the defendant would be waiving or that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the waiver was invalid and unenforceable … . The written waiver signed by defendant was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal … . In addition, the court’s statement that defendant was “going to be required” to waive his right to appeal could have misled him into believing that he had no choice but to do so … . * * *

…Officer Rivera, an experienced policeman who had participated in approximately 30 arrests involving marijuana, testified to the court’s satisfaction that, in his opinion and experience, the manner in which defendant was handling the cigarette indicated that it was a marijuana cigarette. “[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses” … . That Rivera was not “certain” that defendant was smoking marijuana is of no moment, since “[t]he standard for [a forcible stop is] merely reasonable suspicion, not absolute certainty or even probable cause” … .

Defendant effectively concedes that the police were entitled to search in the area of the car where Officer Rivera claims to have smelled marijuana, but not anywhere else, and certainly not in the trunk. This, he argues, is because any grounds the police may have had to believe that the trunk contained drugs were belied by the lack of evidence that they existed anywhere else in the car.

Indeed, there was scant evidence of drugs in the car. After approaching the car, Rivera never saw the marijuana cigarette that he claimed he saw when he drove past defendant’s car, and he was equivocal about whether he smelled burning or unburnt marijuana. Further, the glassine envelope that Officer Ali uncovered was empty, and it was not until later that day, after defendant and his companions were arrested, that Rivera concluded that it contained marijuana. Rivera also conceded that defendant did not appear to be under the influence.  * * * Accordingly, we find that the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk, and that the Ecstasy found there should have been suppressed.  People v Ramos, 2014 NY Slip Op 07931, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

,

Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicle Proper

In upholding the validity of an inventory search of defendant’s vehicle, the Fourth Department explained the analytical criteria:

It is well settled that, “[w]hen the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith’ ” … . Thus, “[h]aving arrested the defendant [in] a public [parking lot], the officers were thereafter entitled to impound the vehicle” … . Furthermore, “[i]t is settled law that the police may search an impounded vehicle to inventory its contents” … . “Such searches, conducted as routine procedures, are permitted to protect an owner’s property while it remains in police custody, to protect the police against false claims for missing property and to protect the police from potential danger” … . Here, the police officers properly impounded the vehicle that defendant drove to the scene of the crime and performed an inventory search of that vehicle pursuant to a reasonable Cheektowaga Police Department procedure, during which they discovered the handgun. Consequently, the court properly refused to suppress the evidence seized during that inventory search. People v Tardi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07880, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Odor of Burnt Marijuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant and Vehicle

The Third Department determined that, upon a valid traffic stop, the odor of burnt marijuana detected by officers Denise and Knoetgen provided probable cause for the search of the vehicle and its occupants:

As for the propriety of the … pat down and/or search of defendant, “it is well established that [t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants” … . Here, both Denise and Knoetgen testified that they smelled burnt marihuana emanating from defendant’s clothing and the vehicle in which he was riding. Even accepting that Denise’s experience in detecting this distinctive odor was not sufficiently developed at the suppression hearing, we are satisfied that Knoetgen, as a drug recognition expert and a K-9 drug detection officer, possessed the requisite training and experience to do so. Further, and as noted previously, Knoetgen testified that the driver of the vehicle admitted that he and defendant had smoked marihuana prior to being pulled over for the underlying traffic violation … . As the circumstances presented and the observations made by the troopers provided probable cause for Knoetgen’s pat down/search of defendant, we discern no basis upon which to suppress the drugs subsequently seized from defendant’s pant leg. People v Rasul, 2014 NY Slip Op 07378, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Warrantless Search of Backpack After Juvenile Was Handcuffed and Placed in a Police Car Justified by “Close Spatial and Temporal Proximity” and “Exigent Circumstances”

The First Department affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication based upon the juvenile’s possession of an air pistol, which was discovered in a warrantless search of the juvenile’s backpack after the juvenile was handcuffed.  In explaining why the suppression motion was properly denied, the court wrote:

The police lawfully detained appellant as a suspected truant … . In the course of this detention, the police lawfully patted down appellant’s book bag, particularly since as appellant approached the police car, the bag hit the car, making a distinctive metallic sound that the officer recognized as the sound of a firearm. In patting down the bag, an officer felt the distinctive shape of a pistol, including its grip and trigger guard. The warrantless search of the bag, after appellant had been handcuffed and placed in the police car, was justified by close spatial and temporal proximity, as well as by exigent circumstances … . These circumstances included the fact that defendant resisted arrest, the officers’ knowledge that appellant was on probation in connection with a past robbery and that he had resisted arrest before, the officers’ high level of certainty that the bag actually contained a weapon, and the danger of appellant reaching the bag, despite being handcuffed, while seated in the police car next to the officer who had the bag. Matter of Kenneth S, 2014 NY Slip Op 07299, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

,

Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals determined that the application of the “emergency doctrine” to justify the warrantless search for and seizure of a weapon was a mixed question of law and fact which was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.  The police responded to a call indicating the defendant had shot himself in the hand.  After the defendant had been frisked and while he his wound was being treated, police officers searched the backyard and found a weapon. The appellate division held that the search was justified by the officers' concern that the children in the house might come across the weapon.  The dissenting judge granted leave to appeal.  The Court of Appeals explained when a mixed question of law and fact is beyond that court's review:

Application of the “emergency doctrine” involves a mixed question of law and fact that is beyond this Court's review so long as there is record support for the findings of the courts below … . The Appellate Division majority and dissent both applied the test set forth in People v Mitchell (39 NY2d 173, 177-178 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]) and reached conflicting conclusions as to when the emergency ceased. Because there is record support for the majority's conclusion that the search was lawful under the emergency exception, “'any further review is beyond this Court's jurisdiction'” … . People v Rossi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07006, CtApp 10-16-14

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy