JOHNSON, AARON J., PEOPLE v
KA 12-00368
| N.Y. App. Div. | Oct 2, 2015Background
- Police executed a valid search warrant at an apartment; defendant was observed standing about 10 feet from the apartment’s wide-open door and detained outside while officers secured the premises.
- Officers saw large quantities of cocaine and marijuana in plain view on a living-room table and arrested defendant.
- Defendant was brought into the apartment during a further search; he identified a cell phone on the table next to the drugs as his.
- A search incident to arrest of defendant’s person recovered documents linking him to the apartment.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to several drug and paraphernalia offenses and appealed, arguing the court erred by denying suppression of physical evidence and his statement identifying the phone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of detention near the premises during execution of the warrant | Detention was lawful because defendant was in the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched and posed a potential threat to officers and the search | Detention was unlawful; defendant was not subject to a valid on-the-spot detention incident to the warrant | Court upheld detention under Bailey: defendant was within the “immediate vicinity,” so detention was lawful |
| Probable cause for arrest after plain-view discovery | Presence of large quantities of drugs and money in open view of the apartment gave probable cause to arrest the person found at the open apartment | Mere proximity to suspected persons isn’t enough (citing Ybarra); defendant argued presence alone did not create probable cause | Court found probable cause because defendant was the only person in/around an open apartment where large amounts of drugs were in plain view |
| Validity of search incident to arrest (seizure of incriminating papers) | Because arrest was supported by probable cause, search incident to arrest and seizure of documents were lawful | If arrest lacked probable cause, the search and seized papers would be unlawful | Court affirmed search incident to a lawful arrest and the admissibility of the seized papers |
| Voluntariness/elicitation of statement identifying the phone (Miranda/functional equivalent) | Officers merely asked pedigree questions and did not highlight the phone; the statement was self-generated, not product of custodial interrogation | Placement near the phone and questioning about pedigree amounted to the functional equivalent of interrogation without Miranda warnings | Court held officers did not reasonably engage in conduct likely to elicit statements about the phone; no Miranda violation and statement admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013) (defines "immediate vicinity" and permits detaining persons near premises during execution of a warrant when they pose a threat to safe execution)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (proximity to premises or occupants alone does not establish probable cause to search a person)
- People v. Bundy, 90 N.Y.2d 918 (1997) (plain-view discovery of a large cache of drugs and money can supply probable cause to arrest those present)
- People v. Sanin, 60 N.Y.2d 575 (1983) (upholds detention of persons in immediate vicinity during warrant execution)
- People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316 (1984) (discusses circumstances in which police conduct amounts to the functional equivalent of interrogation)