People v. Gokey, 60 N.Y.2d 714 (1983)

A warrant authorizing a search of a person can be executed outside the described premises when the warrant application establishes probable cause based on the individual’s activities, not solely on their connection to the premises.

Summary

This case addresses the scope of a search warrant authorizing the search of a person in connection with a residence. The Court of Appeals held that a warrant authorizing the search of the defendant’s person was validly executed in the driveway of his apartment, even though the warrant also authorized a search of the apartment itself. The warrant was based on evidence that the defendant was actively selling drugs, using the apartment as the locus of the sales. Because the warrant application established probable cause based on the defendant’s personal activities, the Court reasoned, the warrant could be interpreted to authorize a search of the defendant’s person as he approached the apartment.

Facts

A warrant was issued authorizing a search of Gokey’s apartment, his person, and any other person found inside the apartment. Police officers arrived at Gokey’s apartment and found him pulling into the driveway in his car. The officers searched Gokey in the driveway and discovered a small quantity of cocaine. They then searched his apartment, finding a larger quantity of cocaine and a handgun.

Procedural History

The lower courts upheld the search and seizure. Gokey appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the search of his person in the driveway was invalid, relying on People v. Green.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the portion of the warrant authorizing a search of the defendant’s person was limited to a search inside the apartment.
2. Whether the evidence submitted to the issuing magistrate established probable cause for the issuance of a warrant authorizing the search of the defendant’s person.

Holding

1. No, because the warrant was based on evidence of the defendant’s personal drug-selling activities, not solely on his connection to the apartment.
2. Yes, because the activities of the defendant provided the predicate for issuing the warrant.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court distinguished this case from People v. Green, where the warrant application focused on the presence of drugs in an apartment, and the defendant’s connection was merely his occupancy and possible constructive possession. In Gokey, the evidence showed that the defendant had sold drugs, and the apartment was identified only as the location of the sales. Therefore, the warrant should be interpreted as authorizing a personal search of the defendant, at least as he approached the apartment. The Court stated, “Here the evidence was that defendant had sold drugs; the apartment was identified only as the locus of the sales. The activities of defendant being the predicate for issuance of the warrant, the warrant should be interpreted as authorizing a personal search of defendant at least as he approached the apartment.” Because the warrant was based on the defendant’s own activities, probable cause existed to search him, even outside the apartment. The court summarily dismissed the defendant’s other contentions as without merit.