People v. Ellis

• Decision Date: 14 June 1984
• Citation: 477 N.Y.S.2d 106,465 N.E.2d 826,62 N.Y.2d 393
• Parties: , 465 N.E.2d 826 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith ELLIS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 106

477 N.Y.S.2d 106

62 N.Y.2d 393, 465 N.E.2d 826

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith ELLIS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 14, 1984.

Hillard Wiese, William E. Hellerstein and Blanca Rodriguez Cruz, New York City, for appellant

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Jane Sachs and Norman Barclay, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SIMONS, Judge.

Defendant has been charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law, § 265.02). He appeals from an order of the Appellate Division, 93 A.D.2d 657, 462 N.Y.S.2d 867, reversing an order of Supreme Court which suppressed the weapon, a .38 caliber two-shot Derringer pistol, seized by the police after they broke open the locked glove compartment of his rented car. The courts below agreed that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant and to search the interior of the vehicle. The Appellate Division, with two Judges dissenting, disagreed with the suppression court, however, and held that the police also had probable cause to search the car's glove compartment.

The order should be affirmed. The police, having lawfully arrested defendant and having reason to believe that his car contained a weapon, were not obliged to stop short of searching the secured areas of the car and risk their own safety when the whereabouts of the gun remained unknown. They could, acting within the requirements of both the State and Federal Constitutions, search the car and any locked containers in it (see People v. Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170, 469 N.Y.S.2d 44, 456 N.E.2d 1167; United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572).

Defendant was arrested shortly after 4:00 a.m. on May 20, 1981, when two New York police officers on motor patrol observed him driving toward them in the dark without headlights. When the police turned around to follow him, defendant pulled over to the curb, got out of the car and met the officers on the sidewalk after they parked their patrol car. The police asked him for his driver's license and, because the license plate indicated the car was rented, for the rental agreement for the car. Without producing the documents defendant asked what he had done wrong and was told that he was driving without headlights. He responded that he had forgotten to put them on. The police again asked defendant for his license and the rental agreement, and he stated that he did not have them. When asked for some form of identification, he mentioned that he had recently been issued a summons for driving without a license but he could not produce that either. The officers then determined to take him to the station house so that he could be identified and served with a summons. Before doing so, they patted him down and during the pat down, Officer Dellacona felt the outline of two bullets in defendant's rear right pants pocket. He reached into the pocket and removed two .38 caliber bullets and some clear plastic envelopes containing marihuana. At that point Dellacona ordered the two female passengers out of the car, patted them down and then looked through the passenger compartment of the car for the gun. Finding none, he tried the door of the glove compartment but it was locked and could not be opened with a key found in the ignition. Dellacona asked defendant for the key but defendant claimed that the ignition key was the only key to the car. Dellacona then forced the glove compartment door open and found the loaded gun. The officers handcuffed defendant, formally arrested him and took him to the police station.

The police officers, observing a traffic infraction, properly followed and stopped defendant and asked him for his driver's license and the rental agreement for the car (People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 447 N.Y.S.2d 873, 432 N.E.2d 745; People v. Middleton, 50 A.D.2d 1040, 377 N.Y.S.2d 938, affd. 43 N.Y.2d 703, 401 N.Y.S.2d 207, 372 N.E.2d 41). Once it became evident that defendant could not be issued a summons on the spot because of his inability to produce any identification, the officers were warranted in arresting him to remove him to the police station and in frisking him before doing so (People v. Copeland, 39 N.Y.2d 986, 387 N.Y.S.2d 234, 355 N.E.2d 288; People v. Troiano, 35 N.Y.2d 476, 363 N.Y.S.2d 943, 323 N.E.2d 183). Finally, although defendant contends otherwise, discovery of the bullets during the frisk permitted the inference that defendant had a gun on his person or in the area and provided the police with probable cause to search the car.

Defendant asserts that this case is controlled by our decisions holding that discovery of certain lawful items associated with guns, such as holsters or practice targets, is not " 'sufficient evidence of criminality to permit more than an inquiry' " by police (see People v. Johnson, 54 N.Y.2d 958, 959, 445 N.Y.S.2d 146, 429 N.E.2d 824; People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 235, n. 9, 428 N.Y.S.2d 655, 406...