People v. Sibron

Citation219 N.E.2d 196,272 N.Y.S.2d 374,18 N.Y.2d 603
Parties, 219 N.E.2d 196 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nelson SIBRON, Appellant.
Decision Date07 July 1966
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Kalman Finkel and Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for appellant.

Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty. (Michael Schwartz, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed.

DESMOND, C.J., and BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN and KEATING, JJ., concur.

FULD, J., dissents and votes to reverse for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in People v. Peters, 18 N.Y.2d 238, 273 N.Y.S.2d 217, 219 N.E.2d 595, decided herewith.

VAN VOORHIS, J., dissents, and votes to reverse in the following opinion.

VAN VOORHIS, Judge (dissenting).

There was no probable cause to make an arrest prior to the discovery of this package of heroin when the officer put his hand into the suspect's pocket allegedly frisking him for a dangerous weapon, nor do the People contend on this appeal that there was probable cause to make an arrest. The testimony of the officer on the pretrial hearing of the motion to suppress suggests that he was looking for violation of the narcotics law, inasmuch as he testified that he saw appellant talking with known drug addicts, and stated to him 'You know what I am looking for.' This may be enough to bring the appellant within subdivision 1 of section 180--a of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that 'A police officer may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony'. On the basis of the heroin which the officer removed from his pocket, he was at first charged with violation of section 1751 of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40 which is a felony, but this was reduced to the misdemeanor charge of violating section 3305 of the Public Health Law, Consol.Laws, c. 45. Giving a liberal construction to the power of a police officer to stop and frisk, under said section added by chapter 86 of the Laws of 1964, it may be assumed that the police officer reasonably suspected that this man was committing or was about to commit a felony within the meaning of this statute, so that he was entitled to stop and frisk him. Until the discovery of the heroin in his pocket, the officer had, however, no probable cause on which to arrest him.

Denial of the motion to suppress the heroin which the officer took from his pocket depends, in order to be sustained, upon the theory that the officer had the right to frisk him under the first sentence of subdivision 2 of section 180--a, and that having found him in possession of the heroin instead of a knife or revolver the narcotic was properly seized and constituted a predicate for his ensuing arrest. This would be authorized by the last sentence of subdivision 2 of section 180--a, if it is constitutional, which reads: 'If the police officer finds such a weapon Or any other thing the possession of which may constitute a crime, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, Or arrest such person.' (Italics supplied.)

That sentence goes beyond anything decided in People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458, 201 N.E.2d 32, or People v. Pugach, 15 N.Y.2d 65, 255 N.Y.S.2d 833, 204 N.E.2d 176. The power to frisk is practically unlimited, inasmuch as whether an officer 'reasonably suspects' that some one is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony necessarily depends to a large extent upon the subjective operations of the mind of the officer. 'The police may not arrest upon mere suspicion' (Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 454, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1359, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479), although they may frisk on suspicion. The very abuses to which this important power is subject furnishes a strong reason for confining its exercise to the single purpose for which the frisk is countenanced--the discovery of dangerous weapons concealed upon the person of the suspect to protect the safety of the officer. To realize the awareness of the United States Supreme Court to the danger of dragnet procedures and general search after the manner of writs of assistance in colonial times one need only read the opinions in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746, or Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231. Those who have opposed the constitutionality or fundamental fairness of stop and frisk have done so on the basis that it will result in general search and seizure upon the person of the suspect. Judge Fuld's dissent in People v. Rivera (supra, 14 N.Y.2d p. 448, 252 N.Y.S.2d p. 464, 201 N.E.2d p. 36) will have been proved to be correct if the right to 'stop and frisk' can be utilized as a ground for making a general search of the person. His dissent in Rivera begins with this statement: 'I very much fear that, if this decision stands, a method will have been devised by which the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches may be evaded and the exclusionary rule of Mapp. v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, to a large extent, written off the books.'

If a frisk reveals a weapon, which is the only purpose for which it is authorized that it should be confiscated and be evidence against the accused on a charge of unlawfully possessing or concealing a weapon or in any other criminal context in which the possession of a weapon is a factor. If we go beyond that, then frisking a suspect, which can be done in practice (though not in theory) at the officer's whim, will become a pretext for the general search of the person,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • United States v. Tarlowski
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • August 4, 1969
    ...because it was authorized by statute, a fact noted by the Supreme Court in its opinion. Id. at 44 and 1893; People v. Sibron, 18 N.Y.2d 603, 272 N.Y.S.2d 374, 219 N.E.2d 196 (1966). In Terry it was suggested that "in the absence of state authority, policemen have no more right to `pat down'......
  • Sibron v. State of New York Peters v. State of New York
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1968
    ...properly admitted, on the ground that the searches which uncovered it were authorized by the statute. People v. Sibron, 18 N.Y.2d 603, 272 N.Y.S.2d 374, 219 N.E.2d 196 (1966) (memorandum); People v. Peters, 18 N.Y.2d 238, 273 N.Y.S.2d 217, 219 N.E.2d 595, (1966). Sibron and Peters have appe......
  • People v. Clements
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1975
    ...on a predetermined target would seem to resurrect the approach rejected by the United States Supreme Court in People v. Sibron, 18 N.Y.2d 603, 272 N.Y.S.2d 374, 219 N.E.2d 196, rev. 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d By spelling the demise of Chimel the majority has eliminated a sound r......
  • People v. Morales
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 1968
    ...273 N.Y.S.2d 217, 219 N.E.2d 595, probable jurisdiction noted 386 U.S. 980, 87 S.Ct. 1291, 18 L.Ed.2d 228, and People v. Sibron, 18 N.Y.2d 603, 272 N.Y.S.2d 374, 219 N.E.2d 196, probable jurisdiction noted 386 U.S. 954, 87 S.Ct. 1042, 18 L.Ed.2d 101. Of course, this statute is limited to th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT