People v. Beaman

• Decision Date: 06 November 1964
• Docket Number: B-1
• Citation: 44 Misc.2d 336,253 N.Y.S.2d 674
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiffs, v. Robert BEAMAN, Defendant
• Court: New York City Court

Page 674

253 N.Y.S.2d 674

44 Misc.2d 336

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiffs, v. Robert BEAMAN, Defendant.

Criminal Court of City of New York, New York County, Part 2B-1.

Nov. 6, 1964.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Asst. Dist. Atty., Louis R. Aidala, New York City, of counsel), for the People.

Jay Goldberg, New York City, for defendant.

WILLIAM E. RINGEL, Judge.

The defendant moves to suppress a switch-blade knife and bludgeon discovered in his automobile. He had been arrested, charged with the misdemeanors of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1192(2), and driving without a license (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 501, par. 4a).

The defendant was taken to the precinct where he was booked and subjected to the sobriety tests provided for in New York City Police Department regulations. After completing the tests which took about thirty minutes, the arresting officer searched the defendant's automobile, as he claims, for liquor. The car had been previously locked by this officer who had at all times herein, retained the key to the vehicle. No liquor was found, but the knife and the bludgeon were uncovered by the officer. The defendant contends that this search of his automobile was unlawful and unreasonable and that the evidence uncovered by such search should be suppressed.

It is axiomatic that unreasonable searches are violative of the Fourth Amendment and evidence so obtained is inadmissible in a prosecution in a state court (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726).

The test of the reasonableness of the search is applicable to things under the accused's immediate control, and depending on the facts, to the place where the accused was arrested (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790; Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145, 51 A.L.R. 409; United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653). This test of reasonableness therefore applies to automobiles as well as to persons (Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879; Carroll v. United States, supra; People v. Lombardi, 18 A.D.2d 177, 239 N.Y.S.2d 161, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 1014, 245 N.Y.S.2d 595, 195 N.E.2d 306).

A search of a person without a warrant is not unreasonable if it is made as an incident to a lawful arrest and contemporaneous therewith as to time and place (Preston v. United States, supra; Carroll v. United States, supra; People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585). However, such search must be truly incidental to the primary purpose to arrest (United States v. Robinson, 2 Cir., 325 F.2d 391; People v. Roach, 44 Misc.2d 40, 253 N.Y.S.2d 24). The reason for this rule, is to prevent the destruction of evidence and to seize weapons or other items which may be employed in assaulting the arresting officer or aid in the escape of the accused (Preston v. United States, supra; People v. Coiro, Sobel, J., Kings Co. Sup.Ct., N.Y.L.J. Oct. 2, 1964, p. 18, col. 1).

The ambit of the incidental search is limited in its general scope. It cannot be construed as broader than that which would be authorized by a search warrant. Otherwise it would be more advantageous not to apply for the...