People v. Gokey

• Decision Date: 29 November 1983
• Citation: 469 N.Y.S.2d 618,457 N.E.2d 723,60 N.Y.2d 309
• Parties: , 457 N.E.2d 723 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph A. GOKEY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 618

469 N.Y.S.2d 618

60 N.Y.2d 309, 457 N.E.2d 723

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph A. GOKEY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 29, 1983.

Robert J. Hanrahan, Watertown, for appellant.

Lee Clary, Dist. Atty., Watertown (Steven J. Greenblatt and Michael A. Gross, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Chief Judge.

A duffel bag that is within the immediate control or "grabbable area" of a suspect at the time of his arrest may not be subjected to a warrantless search incident to the arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag. There being no such exigency present at the time police searched defendant's bag here, the motion to suppress should have been granted.

On the afternoon of March 12, 1981, the Watertown City Police Department received a tip from an informant that defendant was traveling on a bus from New Jersey to Watertown with marihuana and hashish in his possession. With an arrest warrant for an unrelated larceny charge in hand, three Watertown police officers and two officers from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department waited at the bus terminal. With them was a dog specially trained to detect marihuana. Defendant was observed to be carrying a duffel bag when he disembarked from the bus.

One of the officers approached defendant and informed him that he was under arrest. Defendant was then ordered to place his hands against the wall and to spread his feet so that he could be frisked. When led to the duffel bag, which lay on the ground between defendant's feet, the dog's reaction indicated the presence of marihuana. Defendant was then handcuffed. An officer searched the duffel bag and found approximately 11 ounces of marihuana.

After being indicted, defendant moved to suppress the seized marihuana as the fruit of an unlawful warrantless search. County Court, relying on New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, denied the motion. Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree and the Appellate Division, 91 A.D.2d 1208, 458 N.Y.S.2d 967, affirmed the conviction, without opinion. This court now reverses.

In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 461, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2864, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, supra, the Supreme Court set forth a general rule under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution that a custodial arrest will always provide sufficient justification for police to search any container within the "immediate control" of the arrestee. Under this standard, it is clear that defendant's Federal constitutional rights were not violated.

This court has declined to interpret the State constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures so narrowly (see People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454, 465 N.Y.S.2d 896, 452 N.E.2d 1224; N.Y. Const., art. I, § 12; see, also, People v. Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170, 181, 469 N.Y.S.2d 44, 456 N.E.2d 1167). Under the State Constitution, an individual's right of privacy in his or her effects dictates that a warrantless search incident to arrest be deemed unreasonable unless justified by the presence of exigent circumstances. When an individual subjected to arrest has a privacy interest in property within his or her immediate control or "grabbable area", this court has identified two interests that may justify the warrantless search of that property incident to a lawful arrest: the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment (see People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454, 458, 465 N.Y.S.2d 896, 452 N.E.2d 1224, supra; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 52-53, 447 N.Y.S.2d 873, 432 N.E.2d 745).

The reasonableness of a police officer's assertion of the presence of either or both of these predicates to justify a warrantless search is measured at the time of the arrest. Moreover, the search must have been conducted contemporaneously with the arrest. In People v. Smith, supra, for example, this court upheld a search by police of an arrestee's briefcase that was within the arrestee's possession at the time of arrest as a reasonable search incident to arrest. Determinative of the search's validity were the facts that...