CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision

8/12/2019 CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision

1/16

=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n t he New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 23The Peopl e &c. , Respondent , v.J osef i na J i menez, Appel l ant .

Ri char d J osel son, f or appel l ant .Noah J . Chamoy, f or r espondent .

LI PPMAN, Chi ef J udge:

The prot ect i ons embodi ed i n ar t i cl e I , sect i on 12 of

t he New Yor k St at e Const i t ut i on ser ve t o shi el d ci t i zens f r om

war r ant l ess i nt r usi ons on t hei r pr i vacy i nt er est s, i ncl udi ng

t hei r per sonal ef f ect s. I n t he cont ext of war r ant l ess sear ches

of cl osed cont ai ner s i nci dent t o ar r est , t he Peopl e bear t he

- 1 -


2/16


3/16


4/16

- 4 - No. 23

numbers associ ated t herewi t h. There were "No Trespassi ng" si gns

post ed i n t he l obby.

At t hi s poi nt , Ser geant Manzar i i nst r uct ed t wo of t heof f i cer s pr esent t o ar r est def endant and Sanchez f or t r espassi ng.

Of f i cer Pagan appr oached def endant whi l e anot her of f i cer pr epar ed

t o arr est Sanchez. Pagan pr oceeded t o r emove f r om def endant ' s

shoul der a l ar ge pur se, whi ch - - f r om Of f i cer Bar nes' st andpoi nt

- - appear ed t o be heavy. Pagan t hen opened t he bag and saw a

handgun i nsi de. Af t er Pagan i nf ormed Manzar i t hat t he bag

cont ai ned a gun and t hat i t appear ed t o be l oaded, t he Sergeant

i nst r uct ed her t o secur e t he weapon. Ther eaf t er , Pagan

handcuf f ed def endant and t r anspor t ed her t o t he pr eci nct f or

pr ocessi ng.

The t r i al cour t deni ed def endant ' s mot i on t o suppress

t he gun, r ul i ng t hat t he sear ch of def endant ' s pur se was

j ust i f i ed f or saf et y r easons. The cour t det er mi ned t hat t he

pur se was not wi t hi n t he pol i ce' s excl usi ve cont r ol at t he t i me

of t he sear ch and t hat t he super i nt endent ' s gest ur es suggest ed

t hat def endant and Sanchez wer e i n some way connect ed t o t he

bur gl ar y. Def endant was convi ct ed, af t er a j ur y t r i al , of t he

count s char ged.

The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med ( 98 AD3d 886 [ 1st Dept

2012] ) , concl udi ng, i n r el evant par t , t hat t he sear ch was pr oper

gi ven t hat " [ t ] he bag was l arge enough t o cont ai n a weapon and

was wi t hi n def endant ' s gr abbabl e ar ea at t he t i me of her ar r est

- 4 -


5/16

- 5 - No. 23

f or cr i mi nal t r espass i n connect i on wi t h t he pol i ce i nvest i gat i on

of a bur gl ar y" ( i d. at 886) . The cour t f ur t her det er mi ned t hat

t he pol i ce l acked excl usi ve cont r ol over t he bag and t hat t he"sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances . . . suppor t a r easonabl e bel i ef i n

t he exi st ence of an exi gency j ust i f yi ng a sear ch of t he bag, even

t hough t he of f i cer s di d not expl i ci t l y t est i f y at t he suppr essi on

hear i ng t hat t hey f ear ed f or t hei r saf et y" ( i d. ) . A J udge of

t hi s Cour t gr ant ed l eave t o appeal ( 20 NY3d 987 [ 2012] ) , and we

now r ever se.

"Al l war r ant l ess sear ches pr esumpt i vel y ar e

unr easonabl e per se, " and, t hus, " [ w] her e a war r ant has not been

obt ai ned, i t i s t he Peopl e who have t he bur den of overcomi ng"

t hi s presumpt i on of unr easonabl eness ( Peopl e v Hodge, 44 NY2d

553, 557 [1978] ; see al so Peopl e v Cal houn, 49 NY2d 398, 402

[ 1980] ) ; Chi mel v Cal i f or ni a, 395 US 752, 762 [ 1969] ) . Under t he

St at e Const i t ut i on, t o j ust i f y a war r ant l ess sear ch i nci dent t o

ar r est , t he Peopl e must sat i sf y t wo separ at e r equi r ement s. The

f i r st i mposes spat i al and t empor al l i mi t at i ons t o ensur e t hat t he

sear ch i s "not si gni f i cant l y di vor ced i n t i me or l ocat i on f r om

t he ar r est " ( Peopl e v Smi t h, 59 NY2d 454, 458 [ 1983] [ quot at i on

marks omi t t ed] ; see al so Peopl e v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 [ 1983] ;

Peopl e v Langen, 60 NY2d 170, 181 [1983] ) .

The second, and equal l y i mpor t ant , predi cat e r equi r es

t he Peopl e t o demonst r ate t he pr esence of exi gent ci r cumst ances

( Gokey, 60 NY2d at 313; Smi t h, 59 NY2d at 458; see al so Langen,

- 5 -


6/16

- 6 - No. 23

60 NY2d at 181) . We have r ecogni zed t wo i nt erest s under l yi ng t he

exi gency r equi r ement : " t he saf et y of t he publ i c and t he ar r est i ng

of f i cer ; and t he pr ot ect i on of evi dence f r om dest r uct i on orconceal ment " ( Gokey, 60 NY2d at 312) . Exi gency must be

af f i r mat i vel y demonst r at ed. Accor di ngl y, even a bag "wi t hi n t he

i mmedi at e cont r ol or ' gr abbabl e ar ea' of a suspect at t he t i me of

hi s arr est may not be subj ect ed t o a sear ch i nci dent t o ar r est ,

unl ess t he ci r cumst ances l eadi ng t o t he ar r est suppor t a

r easonabl e bel i ef t hat t he suspect may gai n possessi on of a

weapon or be abl e t o dest r oy evi dence l ocat ed i n t he bag" ( Gokey,

60 NY2d at 311; see al so Smi t h, 59 NY2d at 458- 459) .

The cr i me f or whi ch t her e i s probabl e cause t o make t he

ar r est may i t sel f pr ovi de t he r equi si t e exi gency ( see e. g. Peopl e

v J ohnson, 86 AD2d 165 [ 1st Dept 1982] , af f d f or t he r easons

st at ed i n t he deci si on bel ow 59 NY2d 1014 [ 1983] ) . I n J ohnson,

pol i ce were respondi ng t o a r adi o run r epor t i ng a "man wi t h a

gun" ( J ohnson, 86 AD2d at 166) . The bui l di ng super i nt endent

i nf or med t hem t hat t he suspect had st r uck hi m i n t he head wi t h a

pi st ol , t r i ed t o shoot hi m, and r et r eat ed t o an apar t ment . Upon

ent er i ng that apar t ment , t he pol i ce di scover ed def endant st andi ng

t wo f eet away f r om a bed on whi ch l ay a bag t hat def endant

i dent i f i ed as hi s own. We hel d t he sear ch t o be val i d because

t he bag was wi t hi n def endant ' s grabbabl e ar ea at t he t i me of t he

ar r est and t he pol i ce r easonabl y bel i eved t hat t he def endant was

ar med.

- 6 -


7/16

- 7 - No. 23

Exi gency may al so der i ve f r om ci r cumst ances ot her t han

t he nat ur e of t he of f ense. I n Smi t h, f or exampl e, t he def endant

was ar r est ed f or t he nonvi ol ent of f ense of t ur nst i l e j umpi ng,but we hel d t hat t he war r ant l ess sear ch of hi s br i ef case was

r easonabl e because he wore a bul l etpr oof vest and deni ed t hi s

f act when quest i oned by pol i ce ( see Smi t h, 59 NY2d at 459) .

However , we reached the opposi t e resul t i n Gokey, where

no exi gency exi st ed t o j ust i f y the sear ch of def endant ' s duf f el

bag. Def endant t her e was ar r est ed f or t wo nonvi ol ent cr i mes and

no l ess t han f i ve of f i cer s wer e on t he scene. I n addi t i on, t he

Peopl e conceded t hat t he pol i ce di d not f ear f or t hei r saf et y,

but merel y sear ched t he bag because t hey suspected i t cont ai ned

dr ugs.

Li kewi se, t he gun here shoul d have been suppr essed

because t he Peopl e f ai l ed t o meet t hei r bur den as t o the exi gency

r equi r ement . Nei t her Ser geant Manzar i nor Of f i cer Bar nes

t est i f i ed t hat he f ear ed f or hi s saf et y or f or t he i nt egr i t y of

any dest r uct i bl e evi dence. Whi l e an of f i cer need not

af f i r mat i vel y t est i f y as t o saf et y concer ns t o est abl i sh

exi gency, such appr ehensi on must be obj ect i vel y r easonabl e ( see

Peopl e v Bat i st a, 88 NY2d 650, 654 [ 1996] ; Peopl e v Moor e, 32

NY2d 67, 72 [ 1973] , cer t deni ed 414 US 1011 [ 1973] ) .

That was not t he case her e. The det ent i on and ar r est

occur r ed wi t h at l east f our ar med of f i cer s pr esent , and possi bl y

as many as ei ght . Mor eover , t her e was no i ndi cat i on t hat t he

- 7 -


8/16

- 8 - No. 23

demeanor or act i ons of ei t her def endant or Sanchez l ent t hem a

t hr eat eni ng appear ance i n any r espect . The t est i mony

demonst r ated t hat def endant was cooperat i ve and of f ered nor esi st ance t o t he r emoval of t he pur se f r om her shoul der , t he

ensui ng f r i sk, or t he pl aci ng of handcuf f s. Fur t her mor e, t he

unr emarkabl e f act t hat a woman' s pur se appear ed heavy i s

i nsuf f i ci ent , on i t s own, t o suppor t a r easonabl e bel i ef t hat i t

cont ai ns ei t her a weapon or dest r uct i bl e evi dence. Nor di d t he

super i nt endent ' s gest ur es and f aci al expr essi ons exhor t i ng t he

pol i ce to st op def endant and her compani on suppl y t he requi si t e

exi gency. Unl i ke t he wi t ness i n J ohnson who made a st atement t o

pol i ce accusi ng def endant of at t acki ng hi m wi t h a gun, t he

super i nt endent ' s si gnal s bor e no i ndi ci a t hat def endant or her

cohort were armed or otherwi se dangerous. Fur t her , t hat Manzar i

t hought i t pr udent t o separ at e her f r om def endant and Sanchez

dur i ng i nvest i gat or y quest i oni ng i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a

par t i cul ar i zed suspi ci on t hat def endant or Sanchez had a weapon.

To t he ext ent t he hear i ng cour t ' s f i ndi ngs wer e t o t he cont r ar y,

t hey ar e unsupport ed by t he r ecor d.

Cr i t i cal l y, t hat t he ar r est occur r ed when pol i ce wer e

r espondi ng t o a r adi o r un f or a bur gl ar y does not t r ansl at e t o

exi gency under t hese ci r cumst ances. 2 There was si mpl y nothi ng

2 The Peopl e' s r el i ance on Peopl e v Mack ( 26 NY2d 311[ 1970] ) t o j ust i f y t he sear ch her e i s unper suasi ve. Mackconcer ned t he pr opr i et y of t he st op- and- f r i sk of a suspect uponr easonabl e suspi ci on t hat he had commi t t ed a bur gl ar y, concl udi ng

- 8 -


9/16

- 9 - No. 23

connect i ng def endant or her compani on t o t he bur gl ary. Besi des a

common et hni ci t y, t here was no evi dence t hat t hey matched the

r adi o r un descr i pt i on of t he bur gl ar y suspect s. Fur t her mor e, t hehear i ng t est i mony demonst r ates t hat def endant was ar r est ed f or

t r espass, wi t hout any reasonabl e basi s t o suspect t hat she

par t i ci pat ed i n t he al l eged bur gl ar y.

I n sum, t he Peopl e' s pr oof f ai l ed t o demonst r at e t hat

t he ci r cumst ances of def endant ' s ar r est gave r i se t o a r easonabl e

bel i ef t hat her pur se cont ai ned ei t her a weapon or dest r uct i bl e

evi dence. Our const i t ut i onal pr i vacy pr ot ect i ons demand a mor e

r obust evi dent i ar y showi ng t o i nvoke t hi s except i on t o t he

war r ant r equi r ement . Absent t he r equi si t e exi gency, t he

war r ant l ess sear ch of def endant ' s pur se i nci dent t o t hat ar r est

was i mproper and t he gun di scovered shoul d have been suppressed.

I n l i ght of our hol di ng, def endant ' s convi ct i on f or

weapons possessi on cannot st and and her convi ct i on f or f i r st -

degr ee cr i mi nal t r espass, pr emi sed on possessi on of a deadl y

weapon, must be reduced t o cr i mi nal t r espass i n t he second degr ee

( Penal Law 140. 15 [ 1] ) .

t hat i t was " unnecessary t o par t i cul ar i ze an i ndependent sour cef or t he bel i ef of danger " t o j ust i f y the f r i sk (Mack, 26 NY2d at

317) . Even assumi ng t he same r at i onal e appl i es i n t he cont ext ofa sear ch i nci dent t o ar r est , t he case i s never t hel ess i napposi t e.I n Mack, t he pol i ce had devel oped a par t i cul ar i zed suspi ci on ast o t hat i ndi vi dual i n connect i on wi t h a bur gl ar y, wher eas her et he pol i ce l acked a r easonabl e basi s t o suspect def endant ofanythi ng mor e t han t r espass. Accor di ngl y, an " i ndependent sour cef or t he bel i ef of danger " was bot h necessar y and absent .

- 9 -


10/16

- 10 - No. 23

We have consi dered and rej ected def endant ' s r emai ni ng

ar gument r egar di ng j ur y sel ect i on.

Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul dbe r ever sed, def endant ' s mot i on t o suppr ess grant ed, t he

convi ct i on of cr i mi nal possessi on of a weapon i n the second

degr ee vacat ed and t hat count of t he i ndi ct ment di smi ssed, t he

convi ct i on of cr i mi nal t r espass i n t he f i r st degr ee r educed t o

cr i mi nal t r espass i n t he second degr ee and t he mat t er r emi t t ed t o

Supr eme Cour t f or r esent enci ng.

- 10 -


11/16

Peopl e v J osef i na J i mi nez

No. 23

ABDUS- SALAAM, J . ( di ssent i ng i n par t ) :

Whet her t he pol i ce act ed r easonabl y i n conduct i ng t he

war r ant l ess sear ch of def endant ' s handbag i nvol ves " mi xed

quest i ons of l aw and f act " ( Peopl e v Gr eeni dge, 91 NY2d 967, 969

[ 1998] ) and our r evi ew i s t her ef or e " l i mi t ed t o whet her t her e i s

r ecor d suppor t f or t he det er mi nat i ons of t he cour t s bel ow"

( Peopl e v Wheel er , 2 NY3d 370, 373 [ 2004] ) . Cont r ary t o t he

maj or i t y, I concl ude t hat t her e i s r ecor d suppor t f or t he

unani mous f i ndi ngs of t he l ower cour t s t hat t he sear ch her e was

r easonabl e under al l of t he ci r cumst ances. Accor di ngl y, I woul d

af f i r m t he convi ct i on.

To summar i ze, t he pol i ce wer e r espondi ng t o a di spat ch

of a bur gl ar y i n pr ogr ess on t he f i f t h f l oor of a r esi dent i al

bui l di ng. As t hey ent ered t he l obby, t hey saw def endant and her

mal e compani on exi t i ng a st ai r wel l i nt o t he l obby. The bui l di ng

super i nt endent made a f ace and gest ur ed t o t he pol i ce, poi nt i ng

out t hese t wo i ndi vi dual s. When t he pol i ce quest i oned def endant

as t o what she was doi ng i n t he bui l di ng, def endant f i r st cl ai med

t hat she was vi si t i ng a f r i end, but coul d not name t he f r i end.

Def endant t hen changed her st ory, sayi ng t hat she was i n sear ch

- 1 -


12/16

- 2 - No. 23

of a notary, but coul d not name t he notary or gi ve an apart ment

number f or t he notary. The pol i ce, who were begi nni ng t he pr ocess

of i nvest i gat i ng t he bur gl ar y on t he f i f t h f l oor , deci ded t oar r est def endant f or t r espass. Whi l e handcuf f i ng def endant , t he

pol i ce not i ced t hat def endant had a handbag on her shoul der t hat

was wei ghted down, and whi ch def endant was hol di ng t i ght l y t o her

body. The pol i ce opened t he handbag and f ound a l oaded handgun.

The hear i ng cour t deni ed def endant ' s mot i on t o suppress

t he f i r ear m, f i ndi ng t hat t he of f i cer s suspect ed t hat def endant

and her compani on were connect ed i n some way t o t he bur gl ary, and

t hat def endant ' s handbag, whi ch was i n her i mmedi ate cont r ol and

"gr abbabl e space, " pr esent ed a saf et y i ssue f or t he ar r est i ng

of f i cer . The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med, concl udi ng t hat "[ t ] he

sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances her e suppor t a reasonabl e bel i ef i n t he

exi st ence of an exi gency j ust i f yi ng a sear ch of t he bag" ( 98 AD3d

886 [ 1st Dept 2012] ) .

The r easonabl eness of each search i nci dent t o ar r est

must "be determi ned on t he basi s of t he f act s and ci r cumst ances

of t he part i cul ar case" ( Peopl e v Smi t h, 59 NY2d 454, 457

[ 1989] ) . A war r ant l ess sear ch i s j ust i f i ed by exi gent

ci r cumst ances such as t he saf et y of t he ar r est i ng of f i cer ( Peopl e

v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 [ 1983] ) . I n concl udi ng t hat t he

weapon shoul d have been suppr essed, t he maj or i t y has, i n my vi ew,

mer el y di f f er ed wi t h t he l ower cour t s as t o t he r easonabl e

i nf erences t hat may be dr awn based upon t hese f act s, r eached i t s

- 2 -


13/16


14/16

- 4 - No. 23

deci ded t o arr est her based upon her evasi ve and unt r ut hf ul

answer s, t hey had not even made i t up t o t he f i f t h f l oor t o

compl et e t hei r i nvest i gat i on of t he r epor t ed bur gl ar y and t hushad no pr obabl e cause t o ar r est her f or bur gl ar y. But t hey di d

have r eason, by vi r t ue of t he super i nt endent ' s act i ons, t o

suspect def endant , and def endant onl y hei ght ened t hei r suspi ci ons

by her unsat i sf act or y answer s t o t hei r quest i ons. Fur t hermore, as

t he pol i ce wer e ar r est i ng def endant , t hey not i ced that she was

cl ut chi ng a heavy handbag t i ght l y agai nst her body. Reasonabl e

mi nds coul d i nf er t hat t he pol i ce suspect ed def endant of bei ng

i nvol ved i n t he bur gl ar y and t hat her heavy handbag, hel d t i ght l y

agai nst her body, gave r i se t o an obj ect i ve appr ehensi on t hat

def endant mi ght have a weapon t hat pr esent ed a saf ety r i sk t o t he

of f i cer s ( see gener al l y Br i gham Ci t y, Ut ah v. St uar t , 547 US 398,

403 [2006] , quot i ng Mi ncey v. Ar i zona, 437 US 385, 393- 394 [1978]

[ ( W) ar r ant s are gener al l y requi r ed t o sear ch a per son' s home or

hi s per son unl ess t he exi genci es of t he si t uat i on make t he

needs of l aw enf orcement so compel l i ng t hat t he warr ant l ess

sear ch i s obj ect i vel y r easonabl e under t he Four t h Amendment ] ) .

Here, as i n Peopl e v Smi t h ( 59 NY2d 454) , t he cr i me f or

whi ch def endant was bei ng ar r est ed was not suggest i ve of a

weapon, but t he pol i ce had r eason t o suspect def endant of a cr i me

t hat coul d i ndeed i nvol ve a weapon ( see Penal Law 140. 30

[ bur gl ar y i n t he f i r st degr ee] ) , and def endant was hol di ng a bag

t hat "was r eadi l y accessi bl e t o [ her ] and was of suf f i ci ent si ze

- 4 -


15/16

- 5 - No. 23

t o cont ai n a weapon" ( 59 NY2d at 459) . Moreover , l i ke Smi t h,

def endant l i ed t o t he pol i ce, whi ch r easonabl y rai sed t hei r

suspi ci on ( see i d. ) . Thi s case i s di st i ngui shabl e f r om Peopl e vGokey ( 60 NY2d 309) wher e we suppressed mar i j uana sei zed f r om

def endant ' s duf f el bag dur i ng a war r ant l ess sear ch i nci dent t o

ar r est not wi t hst andi ng t hat t he duf f el bag was wi t hi n def endant ' s

"gr abbabl e ar ea" ( 60 NY2d at 312) . I n f i ndi ng t hat t her e was no

exi gency t o j ust i f y t he sear ch i n Gokey, we not ed t hat " t he

pol i ce sought def endant ' s ar r est f or t wo nonvi ol ent cr i mes and

t he Peopl e concede[ d] t hat ' i n al l f r ankness t her e was no

i mmedi at e suspi ci on by t he pol i ce of f i cer s t hat t he def endant was

i n f act armed' " ( i d. at 313) . Fur t her , t he pol i ce had not sei zed

t he bag f r om Gokey upon hi s ar r est "but per mi t t ed hi m t o keep t he

bag bet ween hi s l egs whi l e he was f r i sked" ( i d. ) . I n t hi s case,

t here was no such concessi on by t he Peopl e, and def endant ' s

handbag was sei zed and sear ched cont empor aneousl y wi t h her

arr est .

Addi t i onal l y, whi l e t he maj or i t y not es t hat sever al

of f i cer s r esponded t o t he r adi o r un, and t hat def endant of f er ed

no r esi st ance t o t he ar r est , t he l oaded f i r ear m was st i l l wi t hi n

def endant ' s r each, and t he pr esence of a number of of f i cer s woul d

not have pr event ed her f r om f i r i ng t he gun at t hem. Agai n, a

r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he r equi si t e exi gency exi st ed can be

dr awn f r om t he f act s establ i shed at t he suppr essi on hear i ng.

I n sum, t he determi nat i on t o deny def endant ' s mot i on t o

- 5 -


16/16

- 6 - No. 23

suppr ess t he handgun i nvol ved "mi xed quest i ons of l aw and f act

t hat ar e suppor t ed by evi dence i n t he recor d" and ar e

consequent l y beyond f ur t her r evi ew by thi s Cour t ( Gr eeni dge, 91NY2d at 969) . Accor di ngl y, I woul d af f i r m t he Appel l at e Di vi si on

or der sust ai ni ng def endant ' s convi ct i on.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Or der r ever sed, def endant ' s mot i on t o suppr ess grant ed, t heconvi ct i on of second- degr ee cr i mi nal possessi on of a weaponvacat ed and t hat count of t he i ndi ct ment di smi ssed, t heconvi ct i on of cr i mi nal t r espass i n t he f i r st degr ee r educed t ocr i mi nal t r espass i n t he second degr ee and case r emi t t ed t o

Supr eme Cour t , Br onx Count y f or r esent enci ng. Opi ni on by Chi efJ udge Li ppman. J udges Gr af f eo, Smi t h and Ri ver a concur . J udgeAbdus- Sal aam di ssent s and vot es t o af f i r m i n an opi ni on i n whi chJ udges Read and Pi got t concur .

Deci ded Febr uary 25, 2014

- 6 -

CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision

Documents

Transcript of CoA Josefina Jimenez Decision