People v. Goldberg, 24 N.Y.2d 428 (1969)
Probable cause for an arrest can be established through the totality of circumstances perceived by a police officer using multiple senses, including sight and hearing, even if the officer does not visually identify the suspect before the arrest.
Summary
David Goldberg and Max Landesberg were convicted of bookmaking offenses. The central issue was whether evidence seized by police officer Welsome was admissible, which hinged on the legality of the arrests. Welsome had been observing Goldberg, Landesberg, and Somerfield (a third defendant) for months, knowing them as convicted bookmakers. On the day of the arrest, Welsome tracked them to an office building, overheard a phone call indicative of illegal wagering, and ultimately entered the room, arresting Goldberg, Landesberg and Somerfield. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the officer had probable cause based on the totality of his observations, including his auditory and visual perceptions, and that compelling the defendants to provide handwriting samples did not violate their Fifth Amendment rights.
Facts
Officer Welsome had been observing Goldberg, Landesberg, and Somerfield for three months and knew Goldberg and Somerfield to be convicted bookmakers and Landesberg to have been previously arrested for bookmaking.
On the day of the arrest, Welsome saw Somerfield and other known bookmakers enter an office building.
Goldberg later entered the same building.
Landesberg entered the building as well.
Welsome heard a male voice (not Landesberg’s) inside a room accepting wagers on horse races.
Through a mail slot (the propriety of which the court does not rely upon), Welsome observed Goldberg sitting at a desk.
Welsome then heard Somerfield enter the room and make a statement suggesting ongoing bookmaking activity.
Officer Welsome entered the room and arrested the defendants.
Procedural History
Goldberg and Landesberg were convicted of bookmaking offenses in the trial court.
A motion to suppress the evidence seized by Officer Welsome was denied.
The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case, focusing on the legality of the arrests and the admissibility of the seized evidence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Officer Welsome had probable cause to arrest the defendants for committing a crime in his presence.
2. Whether the arrest was invalid because the officer did not know the identity of the person taking bets prior to entering the room.
3. Whether merely hearing a voice accepting bets through a closed door constitutes a crime committed in the officer’s “presence.”
4. Whether compelling the defendants to provide handwriting samples violated their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Holding
1. Yes, because based on his observations of known bookmakers entering the building, overhearing a phone call indicative of wagering, and Somerfield’s comment, Officer Welsome had reasonable grounds to believe a crime was being committed in his presence.
2. No, because, considering all his observations, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that it was Goldberg he heard taking the bets.
3. Yes, because Officer Welsome acted on evidence he perceived by means of his own senses, without any artificial aids, thus the crime was committed in his presence.
4. No, because handwriting specimens are physical evidence, not testimonial communication, and thus do not fall under the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
Court’s Reasoning
The court distinguished this case from People v. Caliente, where the officer’s observations were insufficient to establish probable cause. Here, Officer Welsome had observed several known bookmakers entering the same building and going to the same floor. He overheard a phone call strongly suggesting illegal wagering activity. The court emphasized that probable cause does not require certainty, but rather a reasonable belief based on the totality of the circumstances.
The court found the officer had probable cause based on direct sensory perception and did not need to know the exact identity of each participant before entering to make the arrest. The court stated that, “[t]o limit the meaning of ‘presence’ to observations perceived through one sense, sight, seems unsupportable.”
Regarding the Fifth Amendment claim, the court relied on Schmerber v. California, which distinguished between testimonial communication and physical evidence. Handwriting samples, like fingerprints, fall into the latter category and are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. The court observed that, “[h]andwriting specimens, like fingerprints, are physical evidence.”