You are here: / SEARCHES

Tag Archive for: SEARCHES

,

No Exigent Circumstances to Justify Search of a Closed Container in Defendant’s Possession Upon His Arrest for Minor Non Violent Offenses to Which the Contents of the Bag Could Have Had No Connection

The First Department determined there were no exigent circumstances which justified the search of a plastic bag (closed container0 that was in defendant’s possession at the time of his arrest:

The police detained defendant in a subway station for violating Transit Authority regulations. Because a warrant check revealed that defendant had an active warrant, the police decided to arrest him rather than issue a summons. Defendant was holding a plastic bag in his hand, and put it on the ground next to him before being handcuffed. An officer picked up the bag, which felt heavy, and looked inside to check for weapons or contraband. Inside the bag was another plastic bag, which contained a canvas bag. The officer then noticed a strong odor of marijuana, opened the canvas bag, and found nearly a pound of marijuana.

The People failed to meet their burden of showing exigency. The officers did not testify that they feared for their safety, or that they were concerned that the bag contained evidence that defendant could destroy, and the circumstances did not suggest that any exigency required an immediate search. Defendant was being arrested for minor nonviolent offenses and was not suspected of any crimes, he was handcuffed and guarded by several officers, he was fully cooperative and voluntarily placed the bag on the ground, his demeanor and actions were not threatening, and there was no indication that he might try to grab or kick the bag, which was no longer in his possession. Furthermore, there was no indication that the bag might contain a weapon and, given the nature of the transit violations, there was no possibility that the bag could contain evidence to support those charges. People v Febres, 2014 NY Slip OP 04150, 1st Dept 6-10-14

 

,

Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement Applied

The Third Department determined the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the glove box of defendant’s car based upon information provided by a confidential informant:

…[T]here was probable cause for the search of the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a search of a vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found inside … . Following defendant’s arrest, the information furnished by the confidential informant provided the police with probable cause to believe that there was a large quantity of ecstasy in the glove box. Inasmuch as the police were authorized to conduct a warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle, County Court properly denied his suppression motion. People v Portelli, 2014 NY Slip Op 02467, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Probable Cause to Search Vehicle for a Weapon After Defendant’s Arrest Provided by Identified Citizen Informant

The Fourth Department determined a weapon was properly seized from a vehicle after defendant’s valid arrest based on information from an identified citizen informant:

It is well settled that, “ ‘where police have validly arrested an occupant of an automobile, and they have reason to believe that [it] may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted, they may contemporaneously search the passenger compartment, including any containers found therein’ ” … .Here, as noted, there is no dispute that defendant was lawfully stopped and arrested. Rather, the issue before us is whether the police lawfully searched the vehicle defendant was driving. Even assuming, without deciding, that the police did not conduct a lawful inventory search, we conclude that a search was authorized because the police had probable cause to believe that a gun was inside the vehicle. Probable cause arose from the information provided to the police by the identified citizen informant, who stated that she observed one of the occupants of defendant’s vehicle in possession of what appeared to be a handgun used in the abduction of her boyfriend. “An identified citizen informant is presumed to be personally reliable” …  and, here, the informant had a sufficient basis of knowledge inasmuch as she personally observed the weapon in question… . People v Holmes, 95, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

, ,

No “Exigent Circumstances”/Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Purse Incident to Arrest for Trespassing Not Justified

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and, therefore, the search of defendant’s purse incident to a “trespassing” arrest was not justified. The loaded handgun in the purse should have been suppressed. The court explained the relevant law:

Under the State Constitution, to justify a warrantless search incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two separate requirements. The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is “not significantly divorced in time or location from the arrest” … .The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances … . We have recognized two interests underlying the exigency requirement: “the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment” … . Exigency must be affirmatively demonstrated. Accordingly, even a bag “within the immediate control or 'grabbable area' of a suspect at the time of his arrest may not be subjected to a search incident to arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag” … . People v Jimenez, 23, CtApp 2-25-14 

 

,

Warrantless Entry Into Defendant’s Backyard Constituted a Search/Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in His Backyard

The Second Department determined that the police officer’s warrantless entry into defendant’s backyard constituted a search because the defendant had an expectation of privacy there. The fact that the officer was aware of an apparently false report of a fire in the area did not justify the application of the emergency doctrine (also analyzed in the decision). The seized evidence (marijuana and a firearm) should have been suppressed:

A search occurs, thereby triggering the protection of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 12 of the New York Constitution, when the police invade an area where a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy … . A legitimate expectation of privacy exists where a person has manifested a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable … . The curtilage of the home–the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home or the area that is related to the intimate activities of the home—is part of the home itself … . The determination of whether an area falls within the home’s curtilage may be made by reference to four factors: “the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by” … .Consideration of these factors in connection with the evidence in this record, including two photographs of a portion of the subject premises, compels us to conclude that the defendant’s rear yard was within the curtilage of the home. The rear yard was in close proximity to the home, shielded from view by those on the street, and within the natural and artificial barriers enclosing the home. This physical arrangement made manifest the defendant’s expectation of privacy, and that expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable… . People v Theodore, 2014 NY Slip Op 01025, 2nd Dept 2-13-14

 

,

Suppression Hearing Should Have Been Held to Determine Whether Property Seized by Use of Excessive Force (Taser)

After determining defendant’s request to represent himself at trial was properly granted, the Third Department noted that a suppression hearing should have been held to determine whether excessive force (taser) was used to retrieve a bag of cocaine from defendant’s mouth:

As for the cocaine recovered from defendant’s mouth after he was tased more than once, defendant raised a question as to whether that evidence was seized from him through the use of excessive force, which requires an analysis “under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard” .. .  Defendant’s affirmation described his version of the arrest and search, and his motion papers asserted that use of a taser constituted excessive force under the circumstances.  The People failed to substantively respond to this argument.  As the motion papers raised a factual dispute concerning the use of a taser and whether it might be considered excessive force, giving rise to a potentially unreasonable search and seizure that may require suppression of the evidence, a hearing was required… . People v Atkinson, 105126, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

,

Harmless Error Rule Should Not Have Been Applied to Guilty Plea

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals, over a dissent, declined to apply the harmless error rule to a guilty plea.  In this driving-while-intoxicated case, the defendant moved to suppress an open bottle of rum and a crack pipe which were found in the car he was driving during an inventory search. The motion was denied. Defendant told the court he wanted to plead guilty because he “was not planning to go to trial if [he] got a negative ruling” on the motion.  On appeal, the inventory search was deemed invalid, but the Appellate Division ruled the error “harmless.”  In reversing, the Court of Appeals wrote:

The harmless error rule was “formulated to review trial verdicts” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d at 378).  It requires an appellate court to assess the quantum and nature of the People’s proof of guilt independent of erroneously admitted evidence and the causal effect, if any, that the introduction of that evidence had on the fact finder’s verdict … .  Harmless error therefore can be “difficult to apply to guilty pleas” — especially in cases involving “an improper denial of a pretrial motion to suppress” — since “a defendant’s decision to plead guilty may be based on any factor inside or outside the record” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d at 378379).  Consequently, convictions premised on invalid guilty pleas generally are not amenable to harmless error review (see id.).

The Grant doctrine is not absolute, however, and we have recognized that a guilty plea entered after an improper court ruling may be upheld if there is no “reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea” (id. at 379).  Although a failure to suppress evidence may detrimentally influence a defendant’s plea negotiations, a concession of guilt may be treated as valid if the defendant articulates a reason for it that is independent of the incorrect pre-plea court ruling (see id. at 379-380) or an appellate court is satisfied that the decision to accept responsibility “was not influenced” by the error… . * * *

Certainly, there may be instances where the failure to grant suppression does not affect a defendant’s decision to plead guilty because the challenged proof is cumulative or too trivial.  In this case, however, the denial of the motion to suppress could not be viewed as harmless and the guilty plea must be vacated. People v Wells, 188, CtApp 11-14-13

 

,

People Failed to Prove Seizure of Cocaine at Police Station Was Not the Fruit of the Illegal Arrest—Attenuation Not Demonstrated

The Third Department determined the People failed to prove that the cocaine seized from the defendant at the police station after his arrest was not the product of the earlier illegal arrest of the defendant (fruit of the poisonous tree).  At the Dunaway hearing, the People presented no witnesses concerning the seizure at the police station.  County Court’s finding that the “attenuation” doctrine supported the legitimacy of the seizure at the station was therefore not supported by the record:

Under well-established exclusionary rule principles, where police have engaged in unlawful activity – here, by arresting defendant without probable cause – evidence which is a result of the “exploitation of that illegality” is subject to suppression as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” unless one of the recognized exceptions to the exclusionary rule is applicable … .  The exception at issue here, as specifically decided by County Court thereby preserving the issue for appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]…), is attenuation, that is, whether the production of the cocaine evidence during defendant’s illegal detention resulted from the exploitation of that illegality, directly or derivatively … .  The focus of the attenuation exception is “on the presence or absence of ‘free will’ or voluntariness regarding a defendant’s . . . acts which follow illegal police conduct; thus, the attenuation inquiry resolves whether the causal connection between the police misconduct and the later discovery of the challenged evidence is so far removed as to dissipate the taint” … .  “That determination requires consideration of the temporal proximity of the arrest and [acquisition of evidence] . . ., the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” … .

Given the complete lack of testimony at the Dunaway hearing regarding the post-illegal-arrest incident at the police station – including any intervening circumstances – in which cocaine evidence was reportedly seized from defendant’s person, we find that the People failed to satisfy their burden of proving the applicability of the attenuation exception.  That is, the People did not prove that the evidence was not acquired by exploiting the illegal arrest but, rather, came about by means “sufficiently distinguishable from [the illegality] to be purged of illegality” … . Thus, County Court’s finding of attenuation is not supported by the hearing record.   People v Small, 103485, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court to Determine Whether Police Had Sufficient Reason for Asking About Drugs and Weapons After Traffic Stop

The Fourth Department sent the case back for a determination whether the police had a founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify an inquiry about the presence of drugs of weapons after a traffic stop:

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the gun recovered from the vehicle based upon the inevitable discovery doctrine.  The testimony at the suppression hearing established that, during a lawful traffic stop, one of the police officers asked defendant whether there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle before instructing defendant to exit the vehicle.  After defendant admitted to having marihuana on his person, the police officer asked defendant to exit the vehicle and, following suspicious behavior by another occupant of the vehicle, searched the vehicle and found a gun in plain view.  Notably, the court did not address whether the officer had the requisite founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify an inquiry concerning the presence of drugs or weapons in the vehicle … . Instead, the court refused to suppress the gun on the ground that the police “could” have taken various actions after the traffic stop that would have inevitably led to the discovery of the gun.  The People, – however, did not raise the inevitable discovery doctrine as a ground for denying suppression of the gun, nor did they meet their burden of “demonstrat[ing] a very high degree of probability that normal police procedures would have uncovered the challenged evidence independently of [a] tainted source”… . People v Sykes, 849, 4th Dept 10-4-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION

Papers Sufficient to Require Suppression Hearing—No Need to Allege Expectation of Privacy Where Police Act Illegally

In finding defendant’s papers were sufficient to require a suppression hearing (re: the suppression of a gun), the Second Department noted that the defendant was not required to demonstrate he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area the gun was found because the motion alleged the gun was seized as a result of illegal police conduct:

A motion to suppress evidence must state the grounds of the motion and contain sworn allegations of fact supporting such grounds (see CPL 710.60[1]…). “It is fundamental that a motion may be decided without a hearing unless the papers submitted raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue” (…see CPL 710.60[3][b],,,). In testing the sufficiency of a defendant’s factual allegations, a court should consider “(1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” … .

Here, the allegations in the defendant’s papers, when considered in the context of the information provided by the People, raised a factual dispute requiring a hearing … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s motion papers contained the requisite sworn allegations of fact … . Moreover, the defendant was not required to demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area where the gun was found …, since, under both the defendant’s and the People’s versions of events, the dispositive issue was whether the gun was recovered as a direct result of unlawful police action …. In light of the foregoing, the County Court should not have denied suppression without conducting a hearing. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and a new determination thereafter of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress physical evidence.  People v Jennings, 2013 NY Slip Op 06384, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy