People v. Grande, 45 N.Y.2d 717 (1978)

An arrest warrant, even without explicitly specifying a location for the contraband, allows officers to be present at the defendant’s home; contraband observed in plain view during the execution of the arrest warrant may be seized without violating the Fourth Amendment.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for possession of unlawfully stamped cigarette packages. The court held that the cigarettes, found in plain view in the defendant’s garage during the execution of an arrest warrant, were lawfully seized. The arrest warrant for offenses identical to the possession charge provided the officers with the legal basis to be on the defendant’s property. The plain view doctrine justified the seizure since the officers observed the contraband while lawfully executing the warrant. This case distinguishes itself from prior cases by emphasizing the existence of a valid arrest warrant as the key factor justifying the officers’ presence and subsequent seizure.

Facts

Tax Department investigators arrived at Grande’s home with an arrest warrant for violations of the cigarette tax law. As the defendant emerged from his house and walked toward his garage, officers approached him. After Grande knocked, his wife opened the garage door, revealing cartons of unstamped cigarettes in plain view. The officers then seized the cigarettes.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted upon a guilty plea of possessing unstamped cigarettes for sale. Prior to his plea, the defendant moved to suppress the seized cigarettes, arguing they were obtained illegally. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the seizure of unstamped cigarettes from the defendant’s garage was justified, given that officers were on the premises executing a valid arrest warrant for the defendant on related charges.

Holding

Yes, because the officers were lawfully present at the defendant’s home executing a valid arrest warrant, and the unstamped cigarettes were in plain view. The arrest warrant provided the necessary probable cause and legal justification for the officers’ presence, distinguishing this case from instances where officers lack such a warrant or legal basis.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court distinguished this case from People v. Rizzo, where seized cigarettes were suppressed due to a lack of probable cause. Here, the existence of a valid arrest warrant for similar offenses was critical. The Court stated that the warrant authorized the officers’ presence at Grande’s home for the purpose of making an arrest. The contraband cigarettes were in plain view when the officers were legally at the threshold of the garage, giving them probable cause to believe a crime was being committed. As such, the warrantless seizure was justified as incident to a lawful arrest. The court emphasized that the defendant never challenged the validity of the arrest warrant itself. The Court reasoned, “While the police were executing the warrant at the threshold of defendant’s garage, they saw cartons and half cases of cigarettes through the open garage door. At the time of arrest, then, when the officers were on defendant’s premises legally, they had probable cause to believe a crime was being committed in the garage, namely, possession, with intent to sell, of untaxed cigarettes. Hence, the officers were justified in seizing the cigarettes in connection with the arrest, and the cigarettes should not have been suppressed.” The court also noted that the lower courts had implicitly found probable cause to seize the contraband, which further supported their decision.