People v. Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278 (1971)

Evidence obtained following an illegal search is admissible if it is also derived from an independent source untainted by the illegality, or if the information inevitably would have been discovered through legal means.

Summary

Reisman was convicted of possessing marijuana. The key issue was whether the marijuana seized should have been suppressed because some information leading to the arrest was allegedly obtained through an illegal search by California police. An airline employee had also independently discovered the marijuana. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the New York police’s surveillance and arrest did not solely depend on the possibly illegal California search, as the airline employee’s independent discovery provided untainted cause for the New York police to act. The court also held that Reisman’s possession of the marijuana was sufficient for the jury to infer his knowledge of its nature.

Facts

An American Airlines customer service agent in Los Angeles, Richard Dunkel, became suspicious of two cartons consigned to George Carlton in care of Tanker Beisman, destined for New York. Acting under tariff regulations, Dunkel opened a carton and found what appeared to be marijuana. The Los Angeles police were notified and, without a warrant, confirmed Dunkel’s discovery. Sergeant McKnight of the Los Angeles police notified Detective Tobin of the New York City Narcotics Bureau about the marijuana shipment. Detective Tobin received the defendant’s name, the flight number, the arrival time and air bill number.

Procedural History

Reisman was convicted in New York State after a trial. He had moved to suppress the marijuana seized, arguing that the evidence was the fruit of an illegal search in California. The suppression court denied the motion, finding the airline employee’s search was an independent, untainted source of information. Reisman appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. This appeal followed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the marijuana seized in New York should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search conducted by California police.
2. Whether the prosecution sufficiently established that Reisman knowingly possessed the marijuana.

Holding

1. No, because the New York police had an independent, untainted source of information (the airline employee’s discovery) that led to the surveillance and arrest.
2. Yes, because Reisman’s act of claiming and accepting delivery of the packages containing marijuana provided a sufficient basis for the jury to infer knowledge.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that even if the California police search was illegal, the information from the airline employee, Dunkel, provided an independent and untainted basis for the New York police to act. Detective Tobin’s observation of the cartons at the airport, combined with their telltale odor of marijuana, provided probable cause for the arrest. The court cited People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 394, and Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, stating that an arrest based on probable cause allows police to seize contraband within their observation.

The court distinguished this case from Silverthorne Lbr. Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 and Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, which established the exclusionary rule for derivative evidence. Here, the independent information “would have inevitably resulted” in the New York surveillance, arrest, and seizure, citing Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 209.

Regarding the full faith and credit argument related to the California court’s suppression order, the court stated that neither direct nor collateral estoppel applied because there was no identity of the prosecuting party or issues. The California court addressed the legality of the search, while the New York court addressed the effect of that illegality on subsequent New York police conduct.

On the issue of knowledgeable possession, the court emphasized that while possession must be knowing, knowledge can be inferred circumstantially. The court stated, “Generally, possession suffices to permit the inference that the possessor knows what he possesses, especially, but not exclusively, if it is in his hands, on his person, in his vehicle, or on his premises.” Furthermore, the court said, “It is an ancient rule of inference or rebuttable presumption of fact that the recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of any crime warrants the inference of guilt, including, when material, knowledgeable possession.” The court found that the probabilities justifying the inference of knowledge were especially strong given Reisman’s acceptance of delivery, possession of a check payable to the consignor, and claiming the packages before being able to identify their markings.