New York Law Review

Tag: Bulletproof Vest

  • People v. Carvey, 89 N.Y.2d 707 (1997): Justifying a Vehicle Search Based on Specific Threats to Officer Safety

    People v. Carvey, 89 N.Y.2d 707 (1997)

    When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and an articulable basis to fear for their safety, they may intrude upon a suspect’s person or personal effects only to the extent necessary to protect themselves from harm; however, specific facts, like wearing a bulletproof vest and furtive movements, can justify a vehicle search even after occupants are removed.

    Summary

    Carvey was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation. Officers noticed Carvey wearing a bulletproof vest and saw him making a furtive movement as if placing something under his seat. After removing all occupants from the car, officers searched the area under Carvey’s seat and found a gun. The New York Court of Appeals held that the search was justified because the bulletproof vest, combined with the furtive movement, gave the officers a reasonable basis to believe a weapon was present and posed an immediate threat to their safety. This case clarifies the exception to the rule that a vehicle search is unlawful once suspects are removed and patted down without incident.

    Facts

    At 1:20 a.m., police stopped a car for lacking a rear license plate. An officer noticed Carvey, a passenger in the rear seat, bend down and place something under the seat with his right hand. The officer also observed that Carvey was wearing a bulletproof vest under his sweatshirt. All four occupants were removed from the car. After patting Carvey down, an officer reached into the car under the rear passenger seat and recovered a gun from the spot where Carvey had been seated.

    Procedural History

    Carvey moved to suppress the weapon and his subsequent statements, arguing they were the result of an unconstitutional search. The suppression court denied the motion, finding the stop and subsequent search lawful. Carvey pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed the suppression court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, after lawfully stopping a vehicle and removing its occupants, police officers may conduct a search of the vehicle’s interior based on reasonable suspicion of a weapon, when the suspect was wearing a bulletproof vest and made furtive movements.

    Holding

    Yes, because the combination of Carvey wearing a bulletproof vest and his act of placing something under the seat gave the officers a reasonable basis to conclude that a weapon was in the vehicle and presented an actual and specific danger to their safety.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holding in People v. Torres, which established a narrow exception to the general rule that a vehicle search is unlawful once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident. The court emphasized that while reasonable suspicion alone is insufficient, facts that lead to the conclusion that a weapon presents an actual and specific danger to officer safety can justify a further intrusion. The court distinguished this case from Torres, where an anonymous tip was deemed insufficient, and People v. Ellis, where bullets found during a frisk provided probable cause for a search. The Court reasoned that a bulletproof vest, unlike an empty holster, demonstrates a readiness and willingness to use a deadly weapon. Combined with Carvey’s suspicious movements, this created a reasonable belief that a weapon was present and posed a threat. As the court noted, “[t]he whole purpose of the wearing of the vest is to make it more feasible to go armed, [and] to enhance the advantage of doing so.” The court emphasized that the intrusion was limited to the area where Carvey had been seated. The court explicitly declined to address whether probable cause to search the entire vehicle existed, as that issue had not been decided below.

  • People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454 (1983): Warrantless Search of a Briefcase Incident to Arrest

    People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454 (1983)

    A container readily accessible to a person during a lawful arrest may be searched without a warrant if the search is contemporaneous to the arrest and there is a reasonable suspicion the arrestee is armed.

    Summary

    This case addresses the permissible scope of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the search of the defendant’s briefcase, which occurred shortly after his arrest for fare evasion and after detectives noticed he was wearing a bulletproof vest, was permissible. The court emphasized the accessibility of the briefcase at the time of the arrest and the reasonable suspicion that the defendant might be armed.

    Facts

    Two Transit Authority detectives observed Smith pass through a subway exit gate without paying a fare. Upon confronting him, Smith admitted he had not paid because he had no money. One of the detectives noticed Smith was wearing a bulletproof vest, which Smith initially denied. The detectives arrested Smith and escorted him to a nearby porter’s room, where they handcuffed him. One detective searched Smith’s person while the other unzipped and searched the briefcase Smith had been carrying, finding a revolver, handcuffs, and a handcuff key inside.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court, New York County, granted Smith’s motion to suppress the contents of the briefcase. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the search was permissible incident to a lawful arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed, albeit with different reasoning.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the warrantless search of the defendant’s briefcase, conducted shortly after his arrest and while he was handcuffed, violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution.

    Holding

    No, because the search was incident to a lawful arrest, contemporaneous with the arrest, and there was reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed, justifying the warrantless search under both the U.S. and New York Constitutions.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals analyzed the search under both the Fourth Amendment and the New York Constitution. Under the Fourth Amendment, relying on New York v. Belton and United States v. Robinson, the court found no violation because those cases permit the search of any closed container taken from the person or within the “grabbable area” of the person arrested. However, the court noted that the New York Constitution requires a more fact-specific reasonableness inquiry.

    Under the New York Constitution, the court held that a person’s privacy interest in a closed container may be subordinate to the need to search for weapons or evidence under exigent circumstances. Here, the court found that the search was justified because the briefcase was readily accessible at the time of the arrest, it was large enough to contain a weapon, and the defendant’s wearing of a bulletproof vest created a reasonable suspicion that he was armed. The court emphasized that the arrest and search were conducted at the same time and place, and the search was reasonable in scope. The court distinguished situations where the container is securely fastened, the arrestee clearly indicates they won’t access the contents, or the container is too small to hold a weapon, noting those circumstances might not justify a search. The Court explicitly stated, “Whether in fact defendant could have had access to the briefcase at the moment it was being searched is irrelevant. He clearly could have had when arrested and neither the distance from nor the time elapsed since the arrest was sufficient to dissipate the reasonableness of conducting a search of the briefcase without a warrant.”