People v. JOHNSON (JAMES)

• Decision Date: 22 December 2003
• Citation: 771 N.Y.S.2d 64,1 N.Y.3d 252,803 N.E.2d 385
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1 N.Y.3d 252

803 N.E.2d 385

771 N.Y.S.2d 64

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES JOHNSON, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued November 20, 2003.

Decided December 22, 2003.

Legal Aid Society Criminal Appeals Bureau, New York City (Richard Joselson, Laura R. Johnson and Judith Stern of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Donald J. Siewert and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT

G.B. SMITH, J.

Following an arrest for driving with a suspended license, the police recovered a loaded gun in defendant's vehicle. The issue in this case is whether the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid inventory search. We agree with the suppression court and the defendant that the evidence adduced at the hearing was insufficient to establish that the alleged inventory search was valid, and therefore reverse the Appellate Division.

I.

Defendant James Johnson was indicted for multiple counts of criminal possession of a weapon. At the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified that on October 2, 1999, he and his partner were patrolling an area of Harlem in an unmarked car and in plainclothes. The officers were part of the Manhattan North Street Crime Unit which focused on "aggressive crimes," including removing guns from the streets. The arresting officer had been a member of the Unit for about six or seven months and this was his third or fourth arrest. His partner was a sergeant.

The arrest took place around 7:10 P.M. at 133rd Street and Seventh Avenue (Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Boulevard). About eight minutes earlier, the officers had observed defendant's vehicle, a black Isuzu Trooper with Virginia license plates, "traveling at a high rate of speed cutting across lanes" without always signaling. The officers had initially stopped behind defendant's vehicle at a red light at 133rd Street and Seventh Avenue. The officers learned that the car was a rental after radioing another vehicle for a plate check.

The officers followed the vehicle as it made a left turn on 135th Street heading west to Eighth Avenue (Frederick Douglass Boulevard), then a right turn heading north until 145th Street, then another right heading east to Seventh Avenue and another right heading south until returning to 133rd and Seventh Avenue. During the pursuit, the officer observed that other cars in front of the vehicle were forced to move out of its way and pedestrians were "jumping back on the sidewalks."

As the officer exited his vehicle, he observed defendant reach for the glove compartment, open it, and then close it. When the officer reached the driver's side of the vehicle, the officer told defendant that he had been pulled over for "driving kind of reckless." When asked for his driver's license and registration, defendant offered his license and stated that the car was a rental, but that he did not have the rental agreement with him. The officer then asked him to look in the glove compartment, but defendant stated that the agreement was not there. When the officer radioed another vehicle for a license check, the license came back suspended. The officer then told defendant to step out of the vehicle, conducted a pat-down search, and directed him to the back of the vehicle. Although the officer had yet to inform defendant, defendant was under arrest for driving with a suspended license.

While defendant remained at the back of his car with the officer's partner, the officer—suspecting that there might be something illegal in the glove compartment—walked to the passenger side of the vehicle and opened the glove compartment, finding a loaded handgun. The officer left the gun in the compartment, approached the defendant and handcuffed him. While in the police vehicle and at the precinct, defendant stated that he was a bodyguard and the gun was for his protection.

The officer testified that the search of the glove compartment was undertaken pursuant to an inventory search. The officer further testified that the objectives of such a search were to make the car safe for the precinct personnel who would be transporting the vehicle and to protect against claims that items were missing. The officer did not complete any inventory forms at the scene, or at the precinct, and did not produce one at the suppression hearing. He did, however, complete a stop and frisk report, noting that he recovered a loaded firearm during a search incident to arrest. The vehicle was transported to the 32nd Precinct, where it was returned to defendant's wife upon production of the rental agreement. The car was never vouchered.

The hearing court granted defendant's motion to suppress the gun and the incriminating statement, rejecting the People's argument that the gun was recovered pursuant to a proper inventory search. The court found that the People offered no evidence with respect to procedures officers must follow during inventory searches. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the officer had conducted a "valid preliminary and limited inventory search at the scene" (298 AD2d 281, 282). We now reverse.

II.

Following a lawful arrest of the driver of an automobile that must then be impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. Defendant does not challenge the stop. Rather, he argues that the People failed to show that the...