People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210 (1975)

An interstate police bulletin can provide probable cause for a warrantless search, but the prosecution must demonstrate that the sending agency possessed the requisite probable cause to act when the search is challenged in a suppression hearing.

Summary

Defendants were convicted of weapon possession and criminal trespass after a warrantless search of their vehicles. The search was based on an interstate police bulletin detailing weapons and stolen motorcycles believed to be in their possession. The New York Court of Appeals held that while a police officer can rely on a bulletin or alert from another officer or department, the prosecution must demonstrate that the sending agency had probable cause to issue the bulletin when a motion to suppress is made. Because the prosecution failed to establish the Pennsylvania authorities’ basis for the information, the case was remitted for a new suppression hearing.

Facts

Undersheriff Brewer of Seneca County received a call from Detective Holhman of the Lancaster, Pennsylvania Police Department, stating that the defendants were en route from Lancaster to Interlaken, NY, with specified weapons and stolen motorcycles. The detective provided detailed descriptions of the vehicles. A teletype message containing the same information was sent to the State Police Headquarters in Albany. Deputies and State Troopers converged on the Lypka residence without arrest or search warrants. The defendants purportedly consented to a search of their vehicles, which revealed contraband and weapons.

Procedural History

The County Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding the defendants had consented to the search. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding probable cause and applying the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. One justice dissented, arguing for the necessity of a warrant. The New York Court of Appeals withheld determination of the appeal and remitted the case to the County Court for further proceedings on the motion to suppress.

Issue(s)

Whether an interstate police bulletin alone can furnish probable cause for a warrantless motor vehicle search, such that evidence found during that search is admissible.

Holding

No, not without further substantiation. The determination of the appeal was withheld and the case remitted to the County Court because the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the Pennsylvania authorities possessed the necessary probable cause to support a search for weapons and stolen property.

Court’s Reasoning

The court acknowledged that a police officer is entitled to act on the strength of a police bulletin or alert from another officer or department, and to assume its reliability, citing Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560, 568. The court noted that “where the bulletin or alert, prima facie, furnishes probable cause, a reasonable search is permissible. In such circumstances the sender’s knowledge is imputed to the receiver and, when the receiver acts, he presumptively possesses the requisite probable cause to search.” However, the court emphasized that this presumption disappears when a motion to suppress is made, and the action is challenged. “At that point, bare reliance on an unsubstantiated hearsay communication from the instigating officer or department will not suffice for probable cause.”

The court stated that the prosecution must demonstrate that the sender or sending agency itself possessed the requisite probable cause to act. Because the record lacked any proof that the Pennsylvania authorities had probable cause, the resulting search was not sustained by the proof. The court also considered the potential danger to the public safety given the nature of the reported items (weapons) and found that the immediate police response was reasonable. The court stated: “That protection of the public may have been accomplished by less intrusive means does not itself render the search unreasonable.”

The court distinguished the case from situations where the receiver’s independent observations confirm the sender’s information and emphasized that the circumstances called for an immediate response. The court determined that the failure to seek a warrant did not make the search unreasonable. The court emphasized practical considerations, stating that it “would be unreasonable to expect or to require that the basis for the bulletin, be it the report of an eyewitness to a crime, the report of an informer, or whatever, be broadcast with the bulletin.”