| People v Richards |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04668 [151 AD3d 1717] |
| June 9, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Antoine Richards, Also Known as Antoine Richards, Jr.,Appellant. |
Sessler Law PC, Geneseo (Steven D. Sessler of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Gregory J. McCaffrey, District Attorney, Geneseo (Joshua J. Tonra of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), renderedSeptember 8, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law,the plea is vacated, those parts of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress physical evidence aregranted, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to Livingston County Court forproceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty,of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law§ 220.16 [1]). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in denying that partof his omnibus motion seeking to suppress physical evidence found on his person.
The evidence at the suppression hearing established that defendant was a passenger in avehicle that was stopped for a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The sheriff's deputyconducting the stop learned that the driver did not have a valid driver's license and placed thedriver under arrest for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree(see § 511 [3]). In checking defendant's "data," the deputy learned thatdefendant also did not have a valid driver's license and that there was a warrant for defendantfrom the Elmira Police Department. The deputy took defendant into custody on the warrant andconducted a pat-down search of defendant, which yielded cocaine and other evidence. Whenquestioned by defense counsel about the warrant, the deputy admitted that, at no time did heconfirm the status of the warrant or determine whether the warrant was "still valid." The deputytestified, however, that, in situations where there is a passenger and there is no warrant, he wouldeither call for someone to pick up the person or drive the person to a gas station or residence. Ifhe were going to transport the person, the deputy would "pat the person down before puttingthem in [his] car to transport" that person somewhere. After the court refused to suppress thephysical evidence, defendant entered his plea.
Defendant now contends that the search of his person was not a lawful search incident to anarrest on a warrant because the People failed to meet their burden of establishing the existence ofa valid and outstanding warrant (see generally People v Jennings, 54 NY2d 518, 522[1981]). Contrary to the People's contention, defendant challenged the validity of the warrant atthe hearing and, therefore, his contention is preserved for our review (cf. People v Ebron,275 AD2d 490, 491 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 934 [2000]; People v Boone, 269AD2d 459, 459 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 850 [2000], denied uponreconsideration 95 NY2d 961 [2000]). We also note that the People, in response todefendant's suppression motion, asserted that the deputy arrested defendant after learning aboutthe warrant.
In any event, we cannot address the merits of the People's contention that the search was alawful search incident to an arrest on a warrant inasmuch as the court did not rule on that issueand, therefore, that " 'issue was not determined adversely to defendant' " (People v Lee, 96 AD3d 1522,1526 [2012]; see People vConcepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 194-195 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d470, 472-474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]; cf. People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878,885 n 2 [2014], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1215 [2015]). In denying suppression of thephysical evidence, the court stated it did not find "any problems with the protocol that wasfollowed. [The deputy] has got an unlicensed driver, so obviously he has an obligation to checkthe other individual to see if he can drive the vehicle. He is also unlicensed; suspended. It is apat-down, safety pat-down." At no time did the court determine that defendant was subjected to alawful search incident to arrest.
We agree with defendant that the court erred in upholding the search on the ground that itwas a lawful "safety pat-down." There was no evidence in the record of the hearing to support aconclusion that "defendant had a weapon or was a threat to [the deputy's] safety" (People v Driscoll, 101 AD3d1466, 1468 [2012]; see People vFord, 145 AD3d 1454, 1456 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 997 [2017]). Moreover, "[a]lthough a police officer may reasonably pat down a personbefore he [or she] places [that person] in the back of a police vehicle, the legitimacy of thatprocedure depends on the legitimacy of placing [the person] in the police car in the first place"(People v Kinsella, 139 AD2d 909, 911 [1988]; see People v Rosa, 30 AD3d 905, 908 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 851 [2006]; People v Hollins, 248 AD2d 892, 894 [1998]). Here, the People failedto establish the legitimacy of placing defendant in the patrol vehicle. First, the People failed toestablish "the existence of a validly-issued and outstanding warrant" (Boone, 269 AD2dat 459). Once defendant challenged the validity of the warrant by questioning the deputyconcerning the status of the warrant and whether it was still valid, the People were "required tomake a further evidentiary showing by producing the . . . warrant" (id.). ThePeople did not do so. Thus, without establishing the existence of a valid and outstanding warrant,the People failed to establish the legitimacy of placing defendant in the patrol vehicle (seeJennings, 54 NY2d at 522-523). Although defendant, who did not have a valid driver'slicense, could not have driven the stopped vehicle from the scene after the arrest of the driver, thedeputy testified that, in the absence of a warrant, defendant could have called for someone to pickhim up and therefore could have lawfully refused to be transported away from the scene in thepatrol vehicle.
In light of our conclusion that the court should have granted those parts of defendant'somnibus motion seeking to suppress physical evidence obtained as a result of the illegal search ofdefendant's person, defendant's guilty plea must be vacated (see People v Stock, 57 AD3d 1424, 1424 [2008]). Further, becauseour conclusion results in the suppression of all evidence in support of the crime and violationcharged, the indictment must be dismissed (see id. at 1425). We therefore remit thematter to County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45. Present—Smith, J.P.,Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.