126 A.D.3d 43
N.Y. App. Div.2015Background
- At ~9:00 p.m. police responded to a 911 report of a suspicious man in a restaurant; manager said defendant appeared to be trying to steal from purses. Officers escorted defendant outside.
- As officers escorted him out, defendant turned and jammed both hands into his jacket pockets; officers grabbed his arms, a struggle ensued, and five to six additional officers arrived.
- Defendant was subdued, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a police car; his jacket fell off during the struggle and lay on the trunk of the police car.
- While defendant sat handcuffed in the police car and multiple officers were present, officers searched the jacket pockets and found envelopes of drugs and a box cutter.
- Defendant moved to suppress the jacket evidence; the Appellate Division majority held the search unlawful and ordered suppression and dismissal of the indictment; one justice dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the jacket within defendant's "grabbable area" at time of search? | Jacket was related to arrest and searchable incident to arrest. | Jacket lay on trunk while defendant was handcuffed in car and multiple officers present; not within reach. | Jacket was not within grabbable area; search not justified on that basis. |
| 2) Did exigent circumstances justify a warrantless search of the jacket? | Defendant's prior conduct (jamming hands into pockets; resisting) gave officers reasonable grounds to fear a weapon; searching to secure weapon was exigent. | By the time of the search defendant was secured and control of scene existed; no objectively reasonable exigency at search time. | No exigent circumstances shown at time of search; People failed burden to justify warrantless search. |
| 3) Could the emergency doctrine or other public-safety concerns justify the search? | (People argued risk of weapon and public/offsicer safety warranted search.) | Majority: emergency doctrine was not argued below or on appeal and record lacks evidence to support it. | Majority declined to address emergency doctrine; search cannot be upheld on that unpreserved ground. |
| 4) Remedy: What is the consequence if search unlawful? | Evidence should be admissible because search was reasonable. | Suppress evidence; indictment must be dismissed for lack of proof. | Motion to suppress granted; conviction reversed and indictment dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jimenez, 22 N.Y.3d 717 (Court of Appeals 2014) (containers outside grabbable area may only be searched incident to arrest if exigent circumstances are objectively shown)
- People v. Gokey, 60 N.Y.2d 309 (Court of Appeals 1983) (search of container not within immediate control unlawful absent exigency)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (vehicle-related search principles; limits on searches incident to arrest when arrestee cannot access vehicle)
- People v. Jenkins, 24 N.Y.3d 62 (Court of Appeals 2014) (exigency must exist at time of search; urgency that has abated cannot justify warrantless opening of container)
- People v. Hodge, 44 N.Y.2d 553 (Court of Appeals 1978) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; People bear burden to justify)
- People v. Boler, 106 A.D.3d 1119 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013) (warrantless search of purse on car hood unreasonable where defendant was handcuffed in back of police car)