People v. Chiagles

Decision Date27 December 1923
Citation237 N.Y. 193,142 N.E. 583
PartiesPEOPLE v. CHIAGLES.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Nick Chiagles was arrested on a criminal charge. From an order of the Appellate Division (204 App. Div. 706,199 N. Y. Supp. 256) affirming an order of special term, which denied defendant's motion for return of certain letters taken from his person at time of his arrest, defendant appeals by permission, and the Appellate Division certified a question to the Court of Appeals (204 App. Div. 706,199 N. Y. Supp. 940).

Question answered, and order affirmed.

The Appellate Division certified the following question.

‘Has the district attorney the legal right to retain the letters taken from the person of the defendant at the time of the arrest?’

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

H. D. Wright, of Gloversville, for appellant.

J. William Titcomb, Dist. Atty., of Gloversville, for the People.

CARDOZO, J.

[1] A peace officer of the city of Gloversville arrested the defendant on October 13, 1922, charging him with a felony, arson in the third degree. The defendant when arrested was searched, and papers and other articles were found upon his person. Everything so found was returned, except two letters, which the district attorney retains on the ground that they supply incriminating evidence. The defendant, after examination before a magistrate, was held to answer to the charge. He moves for an order that the letters be returned.

‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, ought not to be violated; and no warrants can issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ Civil Rights Law, § 8 (Consol. Laws, c. 6).

[2] It is thus the statutes of New York express the principle that English law received as the outcome of the prosecutions of Wilkes and Entick. Entick v. Carrington, 19 State Trials, 1030; Wilkes' Case, 19 State Trials, 1405; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 626, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746. The immunity is not from all search and seizure, but from search and seizure unreasonable in the light of common-law traditions. If immunity is to be conceived of as rule, there is one exception that has been established as firmly as the rule itself. The government may ‘search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime.’ Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 344 (58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177). There is no dearth of illustrative precedents both in our own country and abroad. Dillon v. O'Brien, 16 Cox C. C. 245; United States v. Snyder (D. C.) 278 Fed. 650; United States v. Wilson, (C. C.) 163 Feb. 340; United States v. Welsh (D. C.) 247 Feb. 239; affirmed (C. C. A.) 267 Feb. 819; United States v. Murphy (D. C.) 264 Feb. 842; Woolfolk v. State, 81 Ga. 551, 562, 8 S. E. 724;State ex rel. Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 145 Pac. 69;Getchell v. Page, 103 Me. 387, 69 Atl. 624,125 Am. St. Rep. 307, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 253; State v. Hasson, 149 Iowa, 518, 254, 128 N. W. 960;Closson v. Morrison, 47 N. H. 482, 484,93 Am. Dec. 459;Houghton v. Bachman, 47 Barb. 388; 1 Bishop Crim. Pr. § 211; 9 Halsbury Laws of England, p. 309; 13 Id. p. 510.

[3] The right goes back beyond doubt to the days of the hue and cry, when there was short shrift for the thief who was caught ‘with the mainour,’ still ‘in seisin of his crime.’ 2 Pollock & Maitland History of English Law, 577, 578. The defendant, conceding the right, would, none the less, restrict the seizure to things subject to be taken under a search warrant when there is no arrest of the possessor. Search is then confined under our statute to property stolen or embezzled, or used as the means of committing a felony, or held with the intent to use it is an instrument of crime. Code Crim. Pro. § 792. We find no support for a like restriction upon search incidental to arrest. The books speak broadly of searching the person of the prisoner for anything ‘that may be of use as evidence upon the trial’ (Thatcher v. Weeks, 79 Me. 547, 549, 11 Atl. 599), or for anything ‘that will aid in securing the conviction’ (Holker v. Hennessey, 141 Mo. 527, 539, 42 S. W. 1090,39 L. R. A. 165, 64 Am. St. Rep. 524; cf. Weeks v. United States, supra). If things of evidential value are to be excluded unless of such a nature as to be themselves the instruments of felony, the line may not be drawn between books and papers on the one hand and other articles on the other.

‘There is no special sanctity in papers, as distinguished from other forms of property, to render them immune from search and seizure, if only they fall within the scope of the principles of the cases in which other property may be seized.’ Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 309, 41 Sup. Ct. 261, 265 (65 L. Ed. 647).

[4] Letters to or from accomplices found on the person of a conspirator, and evidencing the plan or the execution of the conspiracy (cf. Dillon v. O'Brien, supra, at p. 248), will have to be returned to the prisoner for concealment or destruction if only the fruits or the implements of crime may be retained; but so also will a murderer's garments, stained with his blood in the course of the affray. Garments thus bespattered are typical examples of the things that precedent and practice permit the government to keep. Woolfolk v. State, supra; State v. Baker, 33 W. Va. 319, 10 S. E. 639. The basic principle is this: Search of the person is unlawful when the seizure of the body is a trespass, and the purpose of the search is to discover grounds as yet unknown for arrest or accusation. Entick v. Carrington, supra. Search of the person becomes lawful when grounds for arrest and accusation have been discovered, and the law is in the act of subjecting the body of the accused to its physical dominion.

The distinction may seem subtle, but in truth it is founded in shrewd appreciation of the necessities of government. We are not to strain an immunity to the point at which human nature rebels against honoring it in conduct. The peace officer empowered to arrest must be empowered to disarm. If he may disarm, he may search, lest a weapon be concealed. The search being lawful, he retains what he finds, if connected with the crime. We may be sure that the law would be flouted and derided if, defeating its own ends, it drew too fine a point, after sanctioning the search, between the things to be retained and the things to be returned. How fine the point might be has illustration in the case before us. The defendant does not attack the legality of the arrest. The attack, if made, would have no basis in the record, for the facts stated in the affidavit of the prosecuting officer make out a prima facie case of the commission of a felony, with reasonable cause for the belief that the person arrested had committed it. Code Crim. Pro. § 177. Conceding the legality of the arrest, he concedes by implication the legality of the search. What he complains of is not the search but the seizure that succeeded it. The search, we are told, may lawfully be made, but what is found must be returned, though it be proof positive of guilt, unless at the same time it is an implement of felony. This is to carry the immunity beyond the bounds of reason. The question has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 cases
  • State v. Parker
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 4, 1999
    ...the mainour,' [in the act] still `in seisin of his crime[,]'" that is, the thief was caught "red-handed." People v. Chiagles, 237 N.Y. 193, 196, 142 N.E. 583, 32 A.L.R. 676 (1923) (citing 2 SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERICK w. MAITLAND, HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 577-78 (1968)). Historically, t......
  • Commonwealth v. Bosurgi
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1963
    ... ... p. 657, 81 S.Ct ... p. 1693) The Fourth Amendment protects and preserves ... '[t]he [411 Pa. 65] right of the people to be secure in ... their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against ... unreasonable [ 7 ] searches and seizures' and, in ... implementation ... ...
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1925
    ... ... unreasonable searches and seizures ... Section ... 23 of the Mississippi Constitution, which provides that, ... "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, ... and possessions, from unreasonable seizure or search; and no ... warrant shall be issued without ... reasonableness of a search or seizure must also be viewed and ... determined in the light of the common-law traditions ... People v. Chiagles, 237 N.Y. 193, 142 N.E ... 583, 32 A. L. R. 676 ... The ... immunity, it will be observed, covers not only a search and ... seizure ... ...
  • United States v. Robinson 8212 936
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1973
    ...lest a weapon be concealed. The search being lawful, he retains what he finds if connected with the crime.' People v. Chiagles, 237 N.Y. 193, 197, 142 N.E. 583, 584 (1923). While these earlier authorities are sketchy, they tend to support the broad statement of the authority to search incid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT