People v. Evans, 43 N.Y.2d 169 (1977)

A warrantless search of a person is unconstitutional if it is not contemporaneous with a lawful arrest, even if probable cause for arrest exists.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a warrantless search conducted based on probable cause, but without a contemporaneous arrest, violates the Fourth Amendment. An undercover officer bought heroin from the defendant, “George.” Later, a sergeant located someone matching George’s description, frisked him, and searched his pockets, finding cash but no drugs. The defendant was arrested a month later. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding the search unlawful because it was not incident to a contemporaneous arrest, despite the existence of probable cause. The court emphasized that an arrest and search must be nearly simultaneous to be considered a valid search incident to arrest.

Facts

An undercover officer, Scirri, purchased heroin from a man named “George” on a street corner. Scirri described George to Sergeant Guadagno. Guadagno found a man matching the description nearby. Guadagno stopped the man (Evans), frisked him for weapons, and then directed him to empty his pockets, revealing three ten-dollar bills. Guadagno then conducted a full search. No warrant check was outstanding and Evans was allowed to leave. Evans was arrested a month later and charged with the heroin sale to Scirri.

Procedural History

At trial, Evans objected to the introduction of the three ten-dollar bills as evidence, arguing that the search was illegal. The trial court overruled the objection, and the jury convicted Evans. The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that the search was justified by probable cause to search for narcotics. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether a warrantless search of a person is justified solely by probable cause to arrest, when the arrest does not occur contemporaneously with the search?

Holding

No, because a warrantless search incident to arrest requires that the search be contemporaneous with a lawful arrest.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while Sergeant Guadagno was justified in frisking Evans for safety, probable cause to arrest does not automatically justify a full search without an actual arrest. The right to personal security outweighs the state’s interest in an exploratory search absent an arrest. A search incident to arrest must be contemporaneous with the arrest; the arrest justifies the search because of the need to protect the officer and prevent the destruction of evidence. The court stated, “An arrest is an essential requisite to a search incident, otherwise once probable cause existed a potential arrestee would be fair game for any intrusions the police deem appropriate for however long they allow him to remain at large.” The court rejected the argument that preserving the undercover officer’s status justified the delayed arrest and search. The court emphasized the importance of “unity of time” in addition to “unity of place” for a valid search incident to arrest. The court further distinguished Cupp v. Murphy, noting that the search there was limited and the evidence (scrapings from fingernails) was in imminent danger of being destroyed. Here, the court determined the admission of the three $10 bills was not harmless error because it corroborated the undercover officer’s testimony. Thus, the conviction was reversed. The court clarified that while “the fact that the search precedes the formal arrest is irrelevant as long as the search and arrest are nearly simultaneous so as to constitute one event,” in this case, the month-long delay was too significant to satisfy the contemporaneous requirement.