Broughton v. State, 50612

• Decision Date: 14 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 50612,50612
• Citation: 352 N.Y.S.2d 234,43 A.D.2d 389
• Parties: Kenneth Gerald BROUGHTON, as Father and Natural Guardian of Susan Margaret Broughton, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 234

352 N.Y.S.2d 234

43 A.D.2d 389

Kenneth Gerald BROUGHTON, as Father and Natural Guardian of Susan Margaret Broughton, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant.

Claim No. 50612.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Feb. 14, 1974.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany (Jeremiah Jochnowitz and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Donald Tirschwell, New City, for respondent.

Before GREENBLOTT, J.P., and COOKE, SWEENEY, KANE and MAIN, JJ.

COOKE, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment, entered May 29, 1973, upon a decision of the Court of Claims.

On the evening of November 14, 1967, claimant was present with Celie Fago in a trailer leased to certain other parties. Claimant was dressed in street clothes, Miss Fago in a bathrobe. At about 10 P.M., officers from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation arrived at the trailer armed with a search warrant and were admitted by claimant. They advised her that they intended to search the trailer, and she responded that it was not hers. The ensuing search revealed about three pounds of marijuana secreted throughout the premises. Both girls were placed under arrest and taken to the Stony Point Barracks. Claimant was fingerprinted, photographed and searched, no drugs having been found on her person. She was arraigned on a charge of Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree (former Penal Law, § 220.20), was released on bail, and was indicted subsequently upon the same charges. Her motion to dismiss the indictment was granted, the county court concluding '(t)here is not a scintilla of evidence to indicate that the defendant resided at this residence, nor is there any evidence whatever from which it could possibly be inferred that she had any knowledge of the existence of the marijuana which was found secreted in this residence.' In related proceedings, the search warrant was found defective (see People v. Broughton, 30 A.D.2d 813, 292 N.Y.S.2d 164, affd., 23 N.Y.S.2d 809, 297 N.Y.S.2d 310, 244 N.E.2d 878). As a result of her arrest, claimant lost her job as a secretary and was unable to secure employment for several months. The incident received publicity via a local newspaper and a local radio station. Claimant also incurred substantial legal expenses in connection with the criminal proceedings against her and in seeking return of her fingerprints.

A claim against the State seeking damages for false arrest was filed and, following a bifurcated trial, claimant was awarded damages for 'lost wages, mental anguish, humiliation and anxiety' together with a sum for legal services rendered in her defense. On this appeal the State argues that it is not liable to claimant for damages since its agents had reasonable grounds to arrest her and that, in any event, damages, if awarded, should be limited to those sustained prior to her arraignment.

Whether the State is liable in damages for false arrest depends on whether the arresting officers had reasonable grounds for believing that an offense was being committed in their presence and that claimant was committing it (Dixson v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 626, 290 N.Y.S.2d 682; Cimmino v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 587, 285 N.Y.S.2d 656).

No claim is made that the police officers were under the impression that claimant resided at the trailer nor would such a claim be credible in view of the testimony before the Grand Jury. She was present in street clothes, gave her address and explained her presence. She was not one of the persons named in the warrant. More importantly, none of the drugs were in plain view but were concealed in various places throughout the trailer. One of the officers testified before the Grand Jury that he detected an odor of marijuana in the trailer. However, his testimony was contradicted by claimant who was also familiar with the scent of that drug and neither the county court nor the Court of Claims mentioned the presence of such an odor in their respective findings. There is no proof that she exercised any control over the trailer or its contents. On these facts, the Court of Claims had a right to find in favor of claimant.

The State's reliance on...