People v. Rosado
214 A.D.2d 375, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4225, 625 N.Y.S.2d 162 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a closed container seized from a person during a lawful arrest is permissible only when an exigency exists, such as a reasonable belief that the container holds a weapon or a legitimate concern for the preservation of evidence.
Facts:
- The defendant, Rosado, was targeted for arrest based on information from an undercover officer.
- Following his arrest, an officer frisked Rosado.
- During the frisk, the officer discovered a small change purse in Rosado's pants pocket.
- The officer removed the purse from Rosado's possession.
- The officer then opened the closed change purse.
- Inside the purse, the officer found 26 glassine envelopes of heroin.
- The arresting officer had not received any information suggesting that Rosado was carrying drugs on his person.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Rosado, was charged in the Supreme Court of New York County, a trial court, with criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance.
- The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the heroin found in his change purse, arguing the search was illegal.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress.
- Following a jury trial, Rosado was convicted on both counts.
- Rosado, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, arguing that the trial court erred in denying the suppression motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless search of a closed change purse found in an arrestee's pocket, when there is no reasonable basis to believe it contains a weapon or evidence that could be destroyed, constitute a permissible search incident to arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.)
No. The warrantless search of the change purse was not a permissible search incident to arrest. A search of a closed container incident to arrest is justified only by an exigency, which was not present here. The court, citing People v. Gokey, held that such a search is permissible only when officers have a reasonable belief that the container's contents pose a danger or when there is a legitimate concern for preserving evidence. In this case, no one suggested the small change purse harbored a weapon. Furthermore, there was no sustainable basis to believe the search was necessary to preserve evidence, as the arresting officer conceded he had no information that Rosado possessed drugs. Once the purse was in the officer's control, any potential threat was neutralized, and a warrant should have been obtained before searching its contents.
Analysis:
This decision strictly applies and reinforces the New York rule established in People v. Gokey, which provides greater protection for closed containers during a search incident to arrest than the federal standard. It clarifies that mere speculation or convenience is insufficient to create the exigency required to bypass the warrant requirement. The ruling emphasizes that once police have secured a container from an arrestee, the justifications for a warrantless search (officer safety and evidence preservation) are significantly diminished, thereby strengthening the preference for judicial warrants.
