People v. Perel, 34 N.Y.2d 68 (1974)
Evidence obtained after a defendant abandons property is inadmissible if the abandonment is a direct result of an unlawful arrest lacking probable cause.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction for illegal possession of narcotics, holding that the evidence (pills containing methadone) should have been suppressed. The defendant dropped an envelope containing the pills while being arrested for burglary. The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause for the initial burglary arrest. Consequently, any abandonment of property by the defendant stemming from that unlawful arrest could not justify the subsequent search and seizure of the envelope and its contents. Therefore, the evidence was deemed inadmissible.
Facts
Patrolman De Angelo arrested the defendant on a burglary charge, without an arrest or search warrant. During the arrest, the defendant dropped a white envelope with his name and address on it. The officer retrieved the envelope, felt a substance inside, and opened it, discovering two pills. The defendant told the officer the pills contained either amphetamine or dolophine. Subsequent laboratory tests revealed that the pills contained methadone, a narcotic.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, for illegal possession of narcotics. His motion to suppress the evidence was denied after a hearing. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the judgment of conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted permission for further appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence (the envelope and pills) should have been suppressed because it was obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure incident to an arrest for which probable cause was not established.
Holding
Yes, because the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the initial arrest for burglary was supported by probable cause; an abandonment cannot justify admission of evidence if it stems from a primary illegality.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that a search without a warrant is reasonable only if incident to a lawful arrest or authorized by consent, or constitutes a valid abandonment of property. Here, there was no consent. Although the defendant dropped the envelope, the court found no valid abandonment because the prosecution failed to establish the lawfulness of the underlying arrest. The court cited People v. Malinsky, noting that to justify a warrantless search incident to an arrest, the prosecution must “go forward in the first instance with evidence to show that probable cause existed * * * in sustaining the legality of a search made, without a warrant, as incident to an arrest”. The mere dropping of an envelope, as in People v. Corrado, is insufficient to establish probable cause. Since the People failed to provide evidence of probable cause for the burglary arrest, the subsequent search and seizure were unlawful. The court reasoned that any abandonment stemming from the unlawful arrest could not validate the seizure of the evidence. As such, the evidence should have been suppressed. The dissent argued that the defendant should have specifically challenged the probable cause for the burglary arrest at the hearing, and the court should have presumed its validity.