People v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 25 March 1974
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Elmore THOMPSON, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 698

353 N.Y.S.2d 698

77 Misc.2d 700

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Elmore THOMPSON, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County, Part 42.

March 25, 1974.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York County, by Daniel Lewis, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.

Gerald B. Lefcourt, New York City, for the defendant.

BURTON B. ROBERTS, Justice:

James Brown, who was on parole from a State Prison sentence for the sale of narcotics, appeared at the Manhattan office of the New York State Department of Correctional Services on January 18, 1973 at about 5 p.m. and reported to his parole officer an incident that he claimed had occurred the previous night. He stated that he had been shot at, for reasons he either did not know or relate (the record is silent), by an assailant whom he named and who, he stated, had quickly fled the scene. Brown's parole officer directed him to see Parole Officer Richard Beyrer and his associates in the Division of Parole's Bureau of Special Services, whose responsibility was to investigate instances of suspected misconduct by parolees.

Beyrer asked Brown if he had reported the shooting to the police. He replied that he had not, because he feared his attacker. Brown's person was searched. He had approximately $1000 in cash in his possession. The money, he explained was the result of his employment as a bill collector, collecting debts owed by bars and other establishments to a record company in Harlem. Brown was then asked to account for his activities following the incident. He stated that he had gone to a hotel for the night, afraid to return to his own residence. The next morning he went to work, and from there to see his parole officer.

In describing how he had arrived at the parole office, Brown gave different versions. First he said he had taken a taxi. Later, he claimed that he had been driven in a private car and let off a few blocks away. Glancing out to the street, however, the officers could not help but notice a 'conspicuous-looking' 1973 Cadillac, waiting directly in front of the building entrance, with someone seated in it. While Brown was being questioned, they were able to quickly ascertain, from other sources, that the Cadillac was customarily used by Brown and was registered to his wife at their home address. Confronted with this information, Brown finally offered the story that he had taken a cab to the vicinity of the office, walked the rest of the way, and that he had arranged to be picked up in his own car at the parole office by somebody from his employer's firm.

With this, Officer Beyrer told Brown that he and his associates intended to search the car, and asked him to identify the occupant. Brown responded, 'I don't know who's down there, but if that fellow has any guns on him, I don't know anything about it.'

The officers went downstairs to the street and approached the car. Alone inside of it, seated in the front passenger seat, was the defendant, Elmore Thompson. Officer Beyrer approached him and asked him if he was with Brown. 'No, not really', was the reply. The officer also asked him if he had any identification. The reply was negative. He then asked the defendant for his name. The reply was silence.

Beyrer told defendant of their intention to search the car, and asked him to step out. Thompson complied and as he left the front seat, he reached down and picked up an attache case which had been lying flat on the floor of the car between his feet. At about this moment, one of the other officers drew his gun. Beyrer, fearful that the defendant was armed, took the case away from him and put it on the roof of the car. Then he spun Thompson around, so that they were both facing the vehicle, and patted down the outside of his clothing. He felt two objects bulging at the defendant's waist and reached for them. From Thompson's belt he removed a .38 caliber revolver and a .357 magnum pistol, both fully loaded. He then opened the snaps of the attache case and looked inside. It contained a .30 caliber carbine filled with twenty-seven live rounds of ammunition and, lying beside it, a white metal silencer.

Defendant stands indicted for possession of these weapons, which are now the subject of this pre-trial suppression motion. The above recitation constitutes the court's findings of fact after a hearing on the motion at which Parole Officer Beyrer testified, uncontradicted, on behalf of the prosecution.

Not surprisingly, the People do not contend that there was probable cause to search the Cadillac, the defendant's person or the attache case. Clearly, that standard was not met by the facts which were available to the parole officers in the instant situation. (See People v. Moore, 32 N.Y.2d 67, 73, 343 N.Y.S.2d 107, 114, 295 N.E.2d 780, 784 (Wachtler, J., dissenting).) The District Attorney does, however, offer another theory on which to sustain the admissibility of the items seized. It is claimed that the parole officers had the right to search the Cadillac and its contents, including the attache case, pursuant to their supervisory powers over Brown as a parolee. (See People v. Santos, 31 A.D.2d 508, 298 N.Y.S.2d 526 (1st Dept. 1969), affd. w/o op. 25 N.Y.2d 976, 305 N.Y.S.2d 365, 252 N.E.2d 861, cert. den. 397 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 1010, 25 L.Ed.2d 263.) In carrying out this authority, it is argued, the officers reasonably suspected that the defendant was armed and, therefore, their limited 'frisk' of him for weapons was constitutionally permissible. (See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889.)

In rebuttal, the defense makes two salient observations: first, that the defendant was not a parolee and the attache case, which was between his legs, by all observable indicia belonged to him; second, that New York's 'stop and frisk' statute (CPL § 140.50) applies only to 'police officers' while parole officers, who hold 'peace officer' status (CPL § 1.20, subd. 33(i)) are not defined as 'police officers' (Id. subd. 34).

The motion to suppress is denied.

Although the parole officers here lacked probable cause to search the Cadillac, probable cause was not a necessary prerequisite to a search of the car by these officers. The standard to be applied is one of 'reasonableness'. ' (A parolee) is subject to a search that would be impermissible in the ordinary situation (People v. Randazzo, 15 N.Y.2d 526, 254 N.Y.S.2d 99, 202 N.E.2d 549). The distinction is that the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment is only against unreasonable searches, and what is reasonable in the case of a parolee is not the same as what is reasonable in the case of another (United States v. Follette, D.C., 282 F.Supp. 10). The very concept of parole entails a degree of supervision of parolees consonant with its purposes. Included within that supervision would be such searches as would reasonably be called for.' (People v. Santos, Supra, 31 A.D.2d 508, 509, 298 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528; see United States ex rel. Santos v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 441 F.2d 1216 (2d Cir. 1972); also, see People v. Hingerton, 74 Misc.2d 1063, 346 N.Y.S.2d 915; People v. Way, 65 Misc.2d 865, 319 N.Y.S.2d 16.) The parole officers here were properly investigating Brown, a parolee who was a convicted narcotics trafficker and whose current activities--as evidenced by the assassination attempt, a large amount of cash and an over-abundance of evasiveness-appeared equally nefarious. They were confronted with the Cadillac, obviously Brown's, the significance of which grew more suspect with his every attempt to conceal its presence, and the illicit nature of which he all but admitted, albeit in a desperate kind of self-exculpatory way, after the officers' determination to search it was announced. There was, therefore, reasonable grounds for an investigation as to whether Brown was violating his parole and a search of the Cadillac was a reasonable and proper incident of that investigation. (Cf. People v. Langella, 41 Misc.2d 65, 244 N.Y.S.2d 802.)

Indeed, counsel for the defendant does not press any contention to the contrary. The thrust of his argument is that any right the parole officers had to search the car did not justify searching the person of the defendant, who was not a parolee, or the attache case, which had every indication of being the defendant's property.

Once we recognize the authority of parole officers to search parolees and their premises, however, we cannot ignore the hazards involved in this kind of public duty. (See People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441, 446, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458, 463, 201 N.E.2d 32, 35.) A bullet's message is deadly no matter who the sender is. A law-enforcement officer in a potentially perilous situation must have a basic right of self-protection notwithstanding the shape of his badge. As long as an officer is properly pursuing his lawful duty, the only issue 'is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety * * * was in danger.' (Terry v. Ohio, Supra, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889.) The parole officers in the instant case had ample reason to fear that the defendant was armed with a gun, or even, as Brown had intimated, with 'guns'. The parolee had practically told them so, in a context so characteristic of human behavior as to be sufficiently reliable to place that fear in any reasonable man. The officers were thus justified in taking reasonable steps to assure themselves that a deadly weapon could not be suddenly used against them while they proceeded to search the car. (Id., 23, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889.) ¹

Put another way, the parole officers' decision to search the Cadillac, their belief that the defendant, an occupant of the car, was armed and that their own safety was in danger, and their limited 'frisk' of the defendant were all Reasonable. And 'if * * * conduct is reasonable it does not offend constitutional limitations and the evidence obtained as a result...