35 Misc. 3d 812
N.Y. City Crim. Ct.2012Background
- Police observed a partially filled cognac bottle and a Sprite bottle in the defendant's car during a traffic stop for suspected DWI.
- The defendant was arrested and transported to an intoxicated driver unit; the car remained unattended on a public street with the bottles inside.
- The officer did not seize or voucher the bottles at the time of arrest or custody, leaving them at the scene overnight.
- The following morning, the officer retrieved the bottles from the car after meeting with an assistant district attorney, approximately 8–10 hours after the observation.
- The court examined whether the initial plain-view observation supported a warrantless seizure when the vehicle and evidence were not in continuous police custody.
- The court concluded that once police relinquish dominion and control over an automobile, a warrant is required to retrieve evidence, and a delayed seizure cannot be justified solely by a prior plain-view observation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the later seizure of the bottles was justified under plain view. | Tashbaeva's plain-view observation supports seizure. | Delay without custody negates warrantless seizure; no ongoing crime scene exception. | Warrant required; delayed seizure invalid. |
| Does the automobile exception or Gant permit the delayed seizure of evidence observed in plain view? | Gant permits searches/ seizures related to the arrest even after delay. | No justification for delayed, non-continuous seizure when vehicle not secured. | Delay not permissible; no automatic predicate from initial plain view. |
| May an ongoing-crime-scene or continued police presence justify delayed retrieval of plain-view evidence from a vehicle? | Continuous presence could validate seizure. | No ongoing crime-scene exception for unattended vehicles. | No ongoing-crime-scene exception; need warrant after interruption of custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Diaz, 81 N.Y.2d 106 (N.Y. 1993) (plain-view requires lawful vantage and immediate incriminating character)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1987) (plain-view requires immediately apparent incriminating nature)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (limits on searches incident to arrest to area of immediate control)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (expanded search incident to arrest to passenger compartment and containers)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits Belton; car searches require reason to believe evidence of offense)
- Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1999) (rejection of unlimited ongoing crime-scene exception)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (temporary exigent searches must yield to warrant once exigency ends)
- People v. Cohen, 58 N.Y.2d 844 (N.Y. 1983) (no warrantless search after preliminary investigation ends; secured premises required)
- People v. Neulist, 43 A.D.2d 150 (1st Department 1973) (continuing presence and time-limited search with warrants)
- People v. Dancey, 84 A.D.2d 763 (1st Department 1981) (plain-view seizure upheld where police presence safeguarded the scene)