189 A.D.3d 1759
N.Y. App. Div.2020Background:
- Trooper ran a Cadillac's plate, learned registration was expired and uninsured, activated lights, and defendant fled at high speeds (up to 117 mph) before crashing; defendant was arrested after a short foot pursuit.
- At the crash scene, State Police conducted and conceded an on-scene inventory search and observed automotive tools in the vehicle.
- The vehicle was towed to Airborne Auto (a private tow company); an Airborne employee searched/took inventory, found a nylon tool bag with high‑end tools, and notified Vestal PD.
- Two police investigators arrived, observed the open tool bag on the hood, looked inside without touching, then pulled a drill out to read its serial number and confirmed it matched a drill reported stolen in a recent burglary at Binghamton Auto.
- Police impounded the vehicle, obtained a warrant, and the subsequent search recovered items matching the burglary; defendant was convicted of burglary, grand larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, and unlawful fleeing a police officer; County Court denied suppression of the vehicle evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plate run / traffic stop | Plate-run lawful; registration/uninsured provided basis for stop | Plate run/stop were improper and tainted subsequent actions | Plate-run not a search; stop supported by expired registration and uninsured status, so pursuit and detention lawful |
| Lawfulness of on-scene inventory search by State Police | Inventory search at scene was lawful and not challenged below | (Conceded lawful at Mapp hearing) | County Court credited concession; inventory search not before court |
| Private tow-company search and police viewing | Private employee's inventory/search is private action; police lawfully viewed bag in plain view when invited onto premises | Search by Airborne Auto violated Fourth Amendment as government action | Private search not subject to Fourth Amendment; police lawfully observed the open bag in plain view |
| Investigator removing drill to check serial number | Investigator had probable cause given matching descriptions and value; examining serial was reasonable to verify stolen status | Removing/examining drill was an independent search requiring a warrant | Although pulling out the drill implicated Hicks principles, the investigator had probable cause to examine the serial; action did not render the search unreasonable; probable cause existed to obtain a warrant anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bushey, 29 N.Y.3d 158 (2017) (plate checks via database not searches under Fourth Amendment)
- People v. Hinshaw, 35 N.Y.3d 427 (2020) (traffic violations can furnish basis for investigatory stop)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (Fourth Amendment applies only to government action; private searches are outside its scope)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (moving objects to view identifying marks can be an unconstitutional search absent exigency or probable cause)
- People v. Adler, 50 N.Y.2d 730 (1980) (private searches not controlled by Fourth Amendment)
- People v. McMahon, 238 A.D.2d 834 (1997) (police examination of items in plain view may be justified by probable cause)
- People v. Tardi, 28 N.Y.3d 1077 (2016) (preservation and challenge standards for inventory searches)