771 F.Supp.3d 157
E.D.N.Y.2025Background
- Ray Brito was indicted for two bank robberies in Queens, New York (Citibank and Santander Bank) committed in June and September 2023, involving threats with a firearm, specific disguises, and a getaway by bicycle.
- Surveillance footage and investigative tracking linked the robbery suspect to a particular Queens residence; Mr. Brito was later seen exiting this residence with items resembling those used by the robber.
- On November 30, 2023, Brito was arrested near the residence; officers searched his person and backpack, discovering items similar to those seen in the robberies.
- After Brito’s arrest, officers conducted inventory searches of his backpack and, following consent and a surrender process involving his family and landlord, searched his Bronx apartment, finding further evidence.
- Brito moved to suppress evidence from his person/backpack and apartment, arguing the arrest and searches violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The court reviewed extensive submissions, surveillance, and legal arguments before denying Brito’s suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Brito's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable Cause for Arrest | Police lacked probable cause; appearances/clothing insufficient grounds. | Surveillance, physical matches, and actions established probable cause under totality of circumstances. | Law enforcement had probable cause based on circumstantial links and conduct. |
| Warrantless Search of Backpack | Search not incident to arrest as Brito was handcuffed and didn't control bag. | Evidence admissible under inventory/inevitable discovery exceptions; search followed police policy. | Search not incident to arrest but admissible due to inevitable inventory search. |
| Search of Apartment | Landlord had no authority; no proper consent for police search. | Landlord had delegated authority through Brito’s mother; Brito vacated apartment. | Consent valid; search also permissible as Brito vacated (no continuing privacy interest). |
| Entitlement to Suppression Hearing | Material facts required a hearing for resolution. | No disputed facts essential to suppression issues remained. | No hearing required; motion resolved on the undisputed record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. 2003) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrests)
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1983) (validity and scope of inventory searches)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (scope of search incident to arrest)
- United States v. Diaz, 854 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2017) (probable cause and search incident law)
- United States v. Lefebvre, 117 F.4th 471 (2d Cir. 2024) (totality of facts establishes probable cause even with minor inconsistencies)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (third-party consent to searches)