People v. Smith

• Decision Date: 07 July 1983
• Citation: 59 N.Y.2d 454,452 N.E.2d 1224,465 N.Y.S.2d 896
• Parties: , 452 N.E.2d 1224 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reggie SMITH, True Name Craig Smith, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 896

465 N.Y.S.2d 896

59 N.Y.2d 454, 452 N.E.2d 1224

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reggie SMITH, True Name Craig Smith, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 7, 1983.

Robert J. Boyle, Middle Village, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Pitler and David H. Steiner, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEYER, Judge.

A container capable of concealing a weapon and the contents of which are readily accessible, taken from a person arrested or from the area readily accessible to him, may be searched without a warrant when the search is close in time to the arrest and there is reason to suspect that the arrested person may be armed. There being no violation of defendant's rights under either the United States or the New York Constitution, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 89 A.D.2d 549, 452 N.Y.S.2d 886.

Defendant having passed through the exit gate next to the subway turnstile without paying a fare or exhibiting a pass was confronted by two Transit Authority detectives who had observed him do so. The detectives' assignment that day was to prevent such a theft of services. ¹ Detective Dukes inquired whether defendant had a pass and was told that defendant did not and had not paid because he had no money. Detective Hantz, who had noticed that defendant was wearing a bullet-proof vest, asked defendant whether he was wearing such a vest. Defendant denied that he was. Hantz then drew his gun and informed defendant that he was under arrest. Dukes and Hantz then escorted defendant to a porter's room, less than 10 feet away. There Hantz handcuffed defendant and searched his person while Dukes took from him the briefcase he had been carrying, unzipped it and found inside it a .38 caliber revolver, a set of handcuffs and a handcuff key.

Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendant's motion to suppress the contents of the briefcase. It found that at the time of the search defendant had been handcuffed and the police had exclusive control of the briefcase. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, it reasoned, merely extended the "grabbable area," in which a search incident to arrest is permissible, to the passenger compartment of an automobile and any container therein; it did not overrule United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538, which held that, absent an exigency, the warrantless search of luggage or other property seized at the time of an arrest cannot be justified.

The Appellate Division reversed. It found that the briefcase had been opened prior to the time that the defendant had been handcuffed, but held that the timing of the search made no difference, answering affirmatively the question "whether, incident to a lawful arrest, the police may contemporaneously search the inside of a briefcase, package, or the like, carried by the arrested person or effectively in his possession, after the object has been removed so that the arrested person no longer has ready access to it." It reached this result on the authority of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, supra, revg. People v. Belton, 50 N.Y.2d 447, 429 N.Y.S.2d 574, 407 N.E.2d 420 and in light of the fact that our decision on remand had left the question open (People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 447 N.Y.S.2d 873, 432 N.E.2d 745). We affirm, although on different reasoning.

Defendant argues before us ² that the search violated the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution because New York v. Belton (supra), only applies to searches involving occupants of an automobile. As to other searches incident to arrest, he suggests, the critical inquiry is whether at the time of the search the person arrested may gain access to the contents of the container. Alternatively, he contends that section 12 of article I of the New York Constitution was violated because the briefcase was searched after he had been effectively neutralized and the briefcase was in the exclusive control of the police.

Although both Federal and State warrant requirements derive from the common law (United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 230, 94 S.Ct. 467, 474, 38 L.Ed.2d 427; People v. Chiagles, 237 N.Y. 193, 197, 142 N.E. 583), they are measured differently. The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to permit if not require the drawing of a bright line for reasons of efficiency between permissible and impermissible searches, even though the result is occasionally to forbid a reasonable search or permit an unreasonable one (Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S., at p. 235, 94 S.Ct., at p. 476; Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 213-214, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2257, 60 L.Ed.2d 824). We have interpreted the New York Constitution to require that the reasonableness of each search or seizure be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the particular case (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 222-223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; People v. Marsh, 20 N.Y.2d 98, 102-103, 281 N.Y.S.2d 789, 228 N.E.2d 783; see People v. Perel, 34 N.Y.2d 462, 468-469, 358 N.Y.S.2d 383, 315 N.E.2d 452).

Applying the standards articulated by the Supreme Court in New York v. Belton (supra) and United States v. Robinson (supra), we discern no Fourth Amendment violation in the search of defendant's briefcase, for those cases permit the search of any closed container taken from the person of, or within the "grabbable area" accessible to, the person arrested, even though the police have no reason to fear for their safety or to suspect that evidence of the crime for which the arrest is made will be found within the container.

The State Constitution, however, has not been read so broadly. A person's privacy interest in a closed container readily accessible to him may become subordinate to the need of the People, under exigent circumstances, to search it for weapons or evidence that otherwise might be secreted or destroyed (People v. De Santis, 46 N.Y.2d 82, 88-89, 412 N.Y.S.2d 838, 385 N.E.2d 577, cert. den. 443 U.S. 912, 99 S.Ct. 3102, 61 L.Ed.2d 876). Whether the circumstances are such as to justify a warrantless search incident to arrest is to be determined, as we recognized in our first Belton decision (50 N.Y.2d, at p. 452, n. 2, 429 N.Y.S.2d 574, 407 N.E.2d 420), at the time of the arrest, but the justification does not necessarily dissipate with the making of the arrest. For compelling reasons, such as the safety of the officers or the public or to protect the person arrested from embarrassment, a search "not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest" may be conducted even though the arrested person has been subdued and his closed container is within the exclusive control of the police (see People v. De Santis, 46 N.Y.2d, at p. 88, 412 N.Y.S.2d 838, 385 N.E.2d 577; People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 180, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 313 N.E.2d 49).

There must, however, be circumstances at the time of the arrest justifying the search. Although probable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed a crime will justify the search of his person (People v. Marsh, 20 N.Y.2d, at p. 102, 281 N.Y.S.2d 789, 228 N.E.2d 783), it will not necessarily justify the search of a container accessible to...