New York Law Review

Tag: Glassine Envelopes

  • People v. Bryant, 37 N.Y.2d 208 (1975): Probable Cause and Second Chances at Suppression Hearings

    People v. Bryant, 37 N.Y.2d 208 (1975)

    The mere presence of empty glassine envelopes and a folded bill in a car, even in a narcotics-prone area, without more, does not constitute probable cause for arrest, and the prosecution is not entitled to a second chance to establish probable cause at a suppression hearing after failing to do so initially.

    Summary

    Bryant and Jones were arrested after a patrolman observed empty glassine envelopes and a folded $10 bill in their parked car. At the suppression hearing, the officer testified about the items and the location’s reputation for narcotics activity. Defense counsel waived cross-examination. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding no probable cause. The Appellate Term remitted for a new hearing, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the initial finding of no probable cause should stand and the prosecution was not entitled to a second opportunity to present evidence. The Court emphasized deference to the original judicial determination and the insufficiency of the evidence to establish probable cause.

    Facts

    A patrolman observed Bryant and Jones sitting in a parked car. He approached the vehicle and requested the driver’s license and registration. The officer saw 43 empty glassine envelopes and a folded $10 bill on the dashboard. Based on these observations, the patrolman arrested both defendants and searched them. A glassine envelope containing a white residue was found on Jones; Bryant had nothing. The $10 bill contained a white substance later determined to be six grains of cocaine. The arresting officer testified he had previously made arrests for drugs being passed in folded dollar bills and that the arrest occurred in a “narcotics prone location”.

    Procedural History

    The Criminal Court of the City of New York granted the defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search. The Appellate Term characterized the patrolman’s testimony as equivocal and remitted the case to the Criminal Court for a hearing de novo. A dissenting justice would have affirmed the lower court’s order. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term’s order and reinstated the Criminal Court’s order granting suppression.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the observation of empty glassine envelopes and a folded bill in a car parked in a narcotics-prone area, without more, constitutes probable cause for arrest.
    2. Whether the prosecution is entitled to a second opportunity to present evidence at a suppression hearing after failing to establish probable cause initially.

    Holding

    1. No, because the mere presence of such items, without additional suspicious behavior or circumstances, is insufficient to raise the level of inference from suspicion to probable cause.
    2. No, because the People have the initial burden to establish probable cause and are not entitled to a second chance to succeed where they have already tried and failed.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals deferred to the hearing court’s finding of no probable cause, noting the intermediate appellate court did not disagree with that finding. The court cited People v. Oden, stating that “the mere passing of a glassine envelope in a neighborhood in which narcotics were known to have been present, unsupplemented by any additional relevant behavior or circumstances found to exist, was insufficient to raise the level of inference from suspicion to probable cause”. The court emphasized that the arresting officer saw only containers suitable for holding narcotics, without actually observing any narcotics being exchanged or used. The court found no warrant to disturb the lower court’s finding that there was no probable cause for the defendants’ arrest. Regarding the second hearing, the Court found it improper because the original hearing was completed, and the People had a full opportunity to present evidence. The defendants chose to rest on the People’s evidence. Citing People v. Malinsky, the Court reiterated that the People bear the burden of showing probable cause to justify a warrantless search incident to arrest, and there was no justification to give them a second chance to succeed where they had already failed. The Court stated that “The People, in order to prevail, are under the necessity of going forward in the first instance with evidence to show that probable cause existed…in sustaining the legality of a search made, without a warrant, as incident to an arrest.”

  • People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594 (1980): Probable Cause and Observations of Glassine Envelopes

    People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594 (1980)

    Observations of glassine envelopes, even in a high crime area, are not sufficient, without more, to establish probable cause for a search and arrest, if the observed actions are susceptible of innocent interpretation.

    Summary

    McRay was arrested after a police officer observed him holding a small purse, opening it, and then handing it to a woman. The officer testified he saw what appeared to be glassine envelopes inside, but admitted he could not distinguish them from candy wrappers. The court held that the officer lacked probable cause for the arrest and search, as the defendant’s actions were susceptible to innocent interpretation. The observation of glassine envelopes, without additional suspicious behavior, was insufficient to justify a warrantless search and arrest.

    Facts

    A Housing Department patrolman, Hackett, in a high-crime area, observed McRay holding a small, zippered purse. McRay opened the purse halfway and withdrew matches. Hackett, approaching closer, thought he saw glassine envelopes in the purse. He conceded he couldn’t distinguish them from candy wrappers. McRay then handed the purse to a woman who accepted it without comment. Both were arrested, and a search of the purse revealed heroin-filled glassine envelopes.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court granted McRay’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding a lack of probable cause. The Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court’s suppression order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the police officer had probable cause to arrest and search McRay based on the observation of what appeared to be glassine envelopes in a purse, coupled with the act of handing the purse to another person, in a high-crime area.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant’s actions were susceptible to an innocent interpretation, and the officer’s observation of the glassine envelopes, without more, did not elevate suspicion to probable cause.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the observed acts were “susceptible of various innocent interpretations.” The court emphasized that more is required to establish probable cause than merely observing actions that could be innocent, even in a high-crime area or involving someone with a narcotics background. The court distinguished this case from situations where behavior is unequivocally suspicious. Here, McRay’s actions—holding a purse, taking out matches, and handing the purse to a woman—could easily be explained innocently. The officer’s testimony that he could not distinguish the glassine envelopes from a candy wrapper further weakened the basis for probable cause. The court stated, “Defendant’s actions are susceptible of innocent explanation, since he may have been handed the purse to find a match or take a piece of chocolate therefrom and then return the purse to the owner.” The court reinforced that an equivocal observation coupled with innocent actions does not create probable cause. The Court cited People v. Russell, 34 N.Y.2d 261, 264 (1974), emphasizing the need for “supplementation by any additional behavior raising the level of inference from suspicion to probable cause.”