People v. Whitehurst, 25 N.Y.2d 389 (1969)
When a search and seizure is based on consent, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the consent was freely and voluntarily given.
Summary
The defendant, Whitehurst, appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of narcotics, arguing that the contraband was obtained through an unlawful search. A detective, recognizing Whitehurst from a prior arrest, asked him, “What have you got this time?” Whitehurst then produced narcotics. The trial court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on Whitehurst to show lack of consent. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that when a search is based on consent, the prosecution has the burden to prove that consent was given freely and voluntarily. This case clarifies the allocation of the burden of proof in suppression hearings involving consent searches.
Facts
Detective Bryan, familiar with Whitehurst from a previous narcotics arrest, observed Whitehurst for about 15 minutes. Inside a store, Whitehurst recognized Bryan and exclaimed, “Oh no. Not you again.” Bryan responded, “Yes, it’s me. What have you got this time?” Whitehurst then took two glassine envelopes from his pocket, placed them on the counter, and said, “That’s all I’ve got.” The envelopes contained narcotics.
Procedural History
Whitehurst was convicted in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of narcotics. He appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the narcotics. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. Whitehurst then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the hearing court improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate a lack of consent when the search and seizure was predicated on consent.
Holding
Yes, because when a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on Whitehurst. The court emphasized that while the defendant generally carries the initial burden of proof when challenging a search and seizure, the People have the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct. Specifically, the Court stated, “When a search and seizure is based upon consent… the burden of proof rests heavily upon the People to establish the voluntariness of that waiver of a constitutional right.” The court noted that Detective Bryan’s question, “What have you got this time?” injected the issue of consent into the case, making the voluntariness of Whitehurst’s actions a central question. Because the detective’s question prompted Whitehurst’s production of the narcotics, the People were required to prove that Whitehurst acted voluntarily, without coercion. The court referenced Bumper v. North Carolina, stating: “When a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given” (p. 548). Since the trial court did not properly apply the burden of proof, a new suppression hearing was ordered. The Court stated that the defendant ought to have the factual issue determined in accordance with constitutional standards.