People v. Belton, 357 N.Y.S.2d 448 (1974)
A warrantless search and seizure on private property is permissible under the Fourth Amendment when exigent circumstances, such as an imminent threat to public safety, exist.
Summary
The defendant, president of the Breed motorcycle gang, appealed a conviction for weapons possession, arguing that the evidence (handguns) was obtained through an illegal search. Police, acting on tips about a gang war and armed gang members, observed Belton hide a package behind a garage near the gang’s clubhouse. Without a warrant, they searched the area, found the package containing handguns, and later arrested Belton. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, finding that exigent circumstances—the imminent threat of gang violence—justified the warrantless search. The court reasoned that the need to protect public safety outweighed Belton’s expectation of privacy in the concealed package.
Facts
On March 8, 1971, police received a teletype about a feud between the Hells Angels and Breed motorcycle gangs, indicating both groups were armed and headed to Nassau County.
Four days later, another teletype from Suffolk County confirmed the gangs were armed with bombs and dynamite and planning a feud.
On April 10, 1971, around 12:30 a.m., police stopped Breed gang members en route to their Nassau County clubhouse, finding dynamite and sawed-off shotguns in their car.
Police then staked out the Breed clubhouse at 18 Gilbert Avenue, Roosevelt.
Around 3:15 a.m., an officer observed cars with out-of-state licenses and people in Breed regalia entering and exiting the clubhouse. Individuals leaving the building were being arrested and found to be armed based on information the officer provided.
At 4:30 a.m., the officer saw defendant Belton leave a group, carry a package to the rear of a detached garage near the clubhouse, bend down, and then walk away without the package.
The officer maintained surveillance of the spot for 15-20 minutes before moving in.
He found the package, which contained three handguns, two loaded, a canister of a parsley-like substance and “Seconal” pills.
Belton was arrested at his residence about an hour and a half later for possessing the guns, and a blackjack was found in plain view during the arrest.
Procedural History
Belton was convicted of possession of a weapon as a misdemeanor based on the blackjack found during his arrest.
He challenged the legality of the search and seizure that produced the handguns, arguing that his arrest for the blackjack possession was unlawful because it stemmed from the initial illegal search.
The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction.
Belton appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the package behind the garage violated Belton’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
Holding
No, because exigent circumstances, specifically the imminent threat of gang violence, justified the warrantless search and seizure.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but not all searches and seizures are forbidden. Reasonableness typically requires a warrant, but exceptions exist. This case fell under the exigent circumstances exception.
The searching officer had information about an impending gang war, the presence of armed gang members at the clubhouse, and the confiscation of weapons from individuals connected to the gang. The officer observed Belton secreting a package behind the garage.
“In that setting the officer, charged with responsibility for protecting the public safety which might well be threatened by the activities of which he had been informed and which he had observed, was justified—indeed obliged—to move rapidly and decisively to ward off foreseeable imminent violence with attendant risk of a serious breach of the peace and possible injury to innocent members of the public.”
The officer reasonably concluded the package contained weapons or explosives, and delaying to obtain a warrant would have exposed the public and police to unnecessary risk. The court emphasized that “what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures”. Elkins v United States, 364 US 206, 222. The court acknowledged the area behind the garage was private property and Belton demonstrated an expectation of privacy by covering the package. However, this expectation was weighed against the justification for the search – preserving public safety.
The intrusion on privacy was limited, as it didn’t extend into any building. The justification for the search was “more than adequate,” given the potential danger to the public. The court found the officer acted reasonably in seizing the secreted package to prevent foreseeable violence. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction.