People v. Belton
| Citation | 416 N.Y.S.2d 922,68 A.D.2d 198 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger BELTON, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1979 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Schuller & James, Buffalo, for appellant (Paul J. Cambria, Jr., Buffalo, of counsel).
James R. Harvey, Dist. Atty., Canandaigua, for respondent (Timothy J. Buckley, Geneva, of counsel).
Before DILLON, P. J., and CARDAMONE, SCHNEPP, DOERR and MOULE, JJ.
On this appeal defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress cocaine found in his jacket which was searched without a warrant in the rear seat of an automobile from which defendant had exited in order to be arrested for possession of marijuana. On April 9, 1978 a state police officer observed an automobile with four passengers traveling 75 miles per hour on the New York State Thruway. Upon stopping the auto and questioning the driver, the officer smelled the odor of marijuana coming from within the auto and observed on the floor of the auto an envelope stamped "Supergold" which he recognized as a type of envelope that it commonly used to sell marijuana. The officer ordered the occupants from the auto and patted each down. He then removed the "Supergold" envelope from the auto and, when he found that it contained traces of marijuana, he arrested the four for possession of marijuana, read them their rights and searched them. The officer then searched the passenger compartment of the auto and seized marijuana cigarette butts which he observed in the ashtrays. He also searched five jackets that he found in the back seat and, in one of them, he found cocaine and defendant's identification. The officer then arrested the four for possession of cocaine.
On May 24, 1978 the Ontario County Grand Jury indicted defendant for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a criminal substance in the sixth degree following the Ontario County Court's denial of his motion to suppress the cocaine.
Defendant contends that the warrantless search of his jacket violated his constitutional rights. The cornerstone of any Fourth Amendment inquiry is reasonableness and a warrantless search must come within one of the "specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576). The exceptions are (1) a consensual search; (2) seizure of evidence and contraband in plain view; (3) search and seizure incidental to a lawful arrest; (4) search and seizure based upon probable cause; and, applicable to automobile searches, (5) a search in exigent circumstances where there exists probable cause (People v. Mahoney, 60 A.D.2d 107, 109-110, 400 N.Y.S.2d 257, 258). Inasmuch as defendant does not challenge the lawfulness of either the initial stop or the arrest for possession of marijuana, the narrow question on this appeal is whether the search of defendant's jacket in the back seat of the vehicle can be justified under one of the above exceptions.
The People contend that the search was justified as a search incident to arrest and we agree. Upon a lawful arrest, a search may be made of the person of the arrestee and of the area within the arrestee's control (United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427; Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685). This area includes those personal effects of the arrestee that are "ready to hand" (People v. Weintraub, 35 N.Y.2d 351, 354, 361 N.Y.S.2d 897, 900, 320 N.E.2d 636, 638). Warrantless searches incident to arrest are justified by the officer's need to find weapons and easily destructible evidence within the arrestee's immediate area (United States v. Robinson, supra; Chimel v. California, supra). Such searches are also allowed so that an officer can discover the fruits of the crime, the instrumentalities used to commit the crime and contraband (People v. Lewis, 26 N.Y.2d 547, 550-551, 311 N.Y.S.2d 905, 907-908, 260 N.E.2d 538, 539-540).
Defendant contends that United States v. Chadwick (433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York v. Belton
...arrested for possession of marihuana, the officer was justified in searching the immediate area for other contraband." 68 A.D.2d 198, 201, 416 N.Y.S.2d 922, 925. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "[a] warrantless search of the zippered pockets of an unaccessible jacket ma......
-
People v. Belton
...the cocaine was denied, he pleaded guilty to sixth degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division, 68 A.D.2d 198, 416 N.Y.S.2d 922 affirmed defendant's conviction. This court, however, reversed and held that the cocaine should have been suppressed because the w......
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. Rasool
...district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncements regarding automobile and container searches. In Belton, supra, a policeman stopped a speeding vehicle. Belton was one of the car's four occupants. While making routine inquiries with respect to the aut......
-
People v. Belton
...affirmed, holding the warrantless search of the jacket lawful as incident to defendant's arrest for possession of marihuana (68 A.D.2d 198, 416 N.Y.S.2d 922). There should be a Analysis begins with the general proposition that, except in a few narrowly circumscribed instances, the Fourth Am......
-
Colorado Automobile Searches After Arizona v. Gant
...drugs. These facts would have satisfied both parts of Gant's two-part test for a valid search incident to arrest. 20. People v. Belton, 416 N.Y.S.2d 922, 925 (1979). 21. People v. Belton, 407 N.E.2d 420, 421 (1980). 22. Belton, supra note 2 at 457. 23. Id. at 459-60. 24. Id. at 460. 25. Id.......