People v. Brown
154 A.D.3d 435
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant David Brown was a pretrial detainee at Rikers Island and was subjected to a strip search and visual body cavity inspection after correction officers entered a dormitory.
- Officers followed a facility policy allowing searches of inmates who displayed suspicious or furtive behavior and otherwise permitting random searches.
- Officers observed Brown fidget nervously and make a sudden movement placing his hand behind his body toward the back of his pants; an officer testified this behavior commonly indicates hiding contraband.
- Contraband was discovered; Brown resisted removal and officers used force to recover the item.
- Brown moved to suppress the evidence from the strip search/visual body cavity inspection and challenged the search as arbitrary and the force used as excessive; the suppression motion was denied, he pleaded guilty to promoting prison contraband in the first degree, was sentenced, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of strip search/visual body cavity inspection of a pretrial detainee | Searches without individualized suspicion are permissible under federal standard balancing institutional security and inmate privacy | Brown: New York Constitution requires individualized reasonable suspicion for pretrial detainee strip searches (relying on People v Hall) | Federal standard (Bell/Florence) satisfied here; search upheld. Court declined to consider unpreserved state-constitutional claim and alternatively rejected it on the merits. |
| Whether officers had required reasonable suspicion | Officers relied on observed furtive behavior and expert experience that such conduct signals concealed contraband | Brown argued the officers lacked individualized suspicion of contraband location | Even if state reasonable-suspicion standard applied, officers had sufficient suspicion based on Brown’s movements and officer expertise; upheld. |
| Random/arbitrary application of search policy | Policy allows unguided discretion for random searches when no one acts suspiciously | Brown argued policy permits arbitrary selection and his search was arbitrary | Not reached on merits because Brown was searched for suspicious behavior, not under the random-selection provision; decision to search was not arbitrary. |
| Use of force during search and identification issues | Prosecution: force used after contraband detected and after Brown resisted; identification evidence unchallenged | Brown: force was excessive; identification challenged | Record shows force was reasonable under the circumstances; identification argument rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (federal balancing test permits strip searches of detainees entering a correctional facility absent individualized suspicion in certain circumstances)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainee rights assessed under a balancing of institutional security and privacy interests)
- People v. Hall, 10 N.Y.3d 303 (2008) (addressed stationhouse arrestee searches; court noted factual differences from jail/detention-facility searches)
- People v. Colon, 130 A.D.3d 434 (1st Dept. 2015) (reasonable-suspicion standard satisfied where inmate conduct suggested concealed contraband)
- People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128 (1966) (officer expertise may inform reasonable suspicion determination)