People v. McCarthy, 14 N.Y.2d 203 (1964)
An arrest for a misdemeanor requires probable cause to believe the suspect is guilty, and evidence obtained from a search incident to an unlawful arrest is inadmissible.
Summary
McCarthy and Kancza were arrested for carrying a suspicious package. Prior to the arrest, they made statements to police indicating it was found nearby. The package contained stolen radios and radio parts. The New York Court of Appeals held that the circumstances did not provide probable cause for the initial arrest of McCarthy and Kancza, making the subsequent search of the package illegal. Therefore, the evidence (stolen radios) should have been suppressed, because a search cannot be validated by its success if the initial arrest was unlawful. The court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial.
Facts
A police officer observed McCarthy and Kancza carrying a closed package addressed to General Consolidated Ltd.
McCarthy told the officer the box contained a doll for his sister and claimed he found the package nearby.
McCarthy and Kancza were arrested on suspicion.
After their arrest, McCarthy and Kancza stated that they received the package from Collins, who threw it over a fence.
Collins later admitted to throwing the package over a fence.
The package was opened at the police station and found to contain stolen radios and radio parts.
Procedural History
The defendants moved to suppress the evidence (radios and radio parts), arguing it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure without a warrant, and as a result of an illegal arrest without probable cause.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendants were convicted.
The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the police had probable cause to arrest McCarthy and Kancza for a misdemeanor at the time of the arrest.
Whether the evidence seized (the radios and radio parts) should have been suppressed as the product of an illegal search incident to an unlawful arrest.
Holding
No, because the circumstances did not provide the officer with probable or reasonable cause to believe that McCarthy and Kancza were guilty of a crime at the time of their arrest.
Yes, because the evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure incidental to an unlawful arrest, the evidence should have been suppressed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied the established rule that even for a misdemeanor arrest under New York Criminal Procedure Law, officers must have probable cause to believe the person is guilty. The court found the circumstances surrounding McCarthy and Kancza’s possession of the package, and their initial explanation, did not provide probable cause to believe they had committed a crime. The court emphasized that probable cause must exist *prior* to the arrest. The court cited *People v. O’Neill*, noting that “[a] search is good or bad when it starts and does not change character from its success.” The Court further cited *People v. Loria*, stating that the validity of a warrantless arrest depends on probable cause, and such cause cannot be based on evidence obtained from a search whose validity depends on the validity of the arrest. In other words, the discovery of the stolen goods could not retroactively justify an arrest that was initially unlawful. The dissent is not discussed.