14 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
An “all persons present” search warrant requires a substantial probability, supported by specific facts, that every person within the premises subject to the warrant is involved in the suspected illegal activity; strip searches require particularized suspicion beyond the warrant itself.
Summary
Robert Mothersell was convicted of drug possession after a strip search pursuant to an “all persons present” warrant. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding the warrant was invalid because the application lacked sufficient facts to establish probable cause that everyone present at the searched location was involved in drug activity. The court emphasized that the warrant application failed to show that the premises were entirely dedicated to drug activity or to adequately address factors like innocent uses of the premises or the behavior of people present. Additionally, the court clarified that strip searches, particularly visual cavity searches, require a specific, individualized suspicion beyond the general warrant.
Facts
Two controlled cocaine purchases were made by confidential informants at a residential apartment. The first purchase was from a man referred to as “Tom”; the second was from an unknown male weeks later. Based on these purchases, police obtained an “all persons present” warrant for the apartment, authorizing the search of anyone present. During the warrant’s execution, officers strip-searched Mothersell, requiring him to lift his scrotum and expose his anal cavity. Incriminating evidence was discovered during the latter part of this search. Mothersell was not independently suspected of any crime and was searched solely based on the warrant.
Procedural History
Mothersell moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrant lacked a factual basis and the strip search violated his constitutional rights. The trial court denied the motion, finding the warrant valid and the search reasonable. Mothersell then pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the “all persons present” search warrant was supported by probable cause sufficient to justify the search of all individuals present at the specified location.
2. Whether the strip search, including a visual body cavity search, of Mothersell was justified under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution.
Holding
1. No, because the warrant application lacked specific facts showing a substantial probability that everyone present at the apartment was involved in drug activity.
2. No, because the strip search, particularly the visual body cavity search, required a specific, articulable factual basis that was not present.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that while CPL 690.15(2) and People v. Nieves allow for “all persons present” warrants, their use is “severely limited.” The court reaffirmed the standard from Nieves, stating, “The facts made known to the Magistrate and the reasonable inferences to which they give rise, must create a substantial probability… that the authorized invasions of privacy will be justified by discovery of the items sought from all persons present when the warrant is executed.” The court found the warrant application deficient because it failed to demonstrate the required “substantial probability” that everyone present was involved in drug activity. The application lacked details about the character of the premises, whether innocent uses had been observed, the number and behavior of persons present, and other factors necessary for the magistrate to properly assess the probability. The court noted that two isolated drug purchases were insufficient to show that the residence was entirely dedicated to drug trafficking. The court stressed that the warrant application’s statement that it was “not uncommon that persons found in the subject residence could reasonably be expected to conceal cocaine” was insufficient to justify the warrant, as this did not indicate probable cause that every person present would have drugs on their person.
Addressing the strip search, the court cited People v. Hall, holding that even with probable cause for arrest, a strip search (especially a visual body cavity search) requires “particular, individualized facts known to the police that justify subjecting an arrestee to these procedures.” Because there was no individualized suspicion beyond the warrant itself, the strip search was deemed unlawful.