New York Law Review

Tag: narcotics

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

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

    The observation of a glassine envelope exchange in a high-crime area, while relevant, does not automatically establish probable cause for an arrest; additional circumstances are needed to elevate suspicion to probable cause.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression of evidence, holding that the observation of a glassine envelope exchange in a high-crime area, without more, is insufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest. A police officer, using a telescope, observed the defendant receive a glassine envelope from another individual in an area known for narcotics activity. The court emphasized that probable cause requires a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed, based on the totality of the circumstances. Since the lower court did not credit certain aspects of the officer’s testimony and found no additional suspicious behavior, the Court of Appeals deferred to the factual findings and upheld the suppression order.

    Facts

    On October 5, 1973, Officer Gervasi, part of a narcotics enforcement unit, was surveilling an area known for drug activity. Using a telescope, he saw the defendant and another person, Johnson, engage in a brief conversation. Johnson handed the defendant a glassine envelope. The officer could not ascertain the contents of the envelope. The officer testified that the defendant took a quick look at the envelope and then closed her hand in a fist.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was arrested, and evidence was seized. She moved to suppress the evidence, arguing a lack of probable cause. The Criminal Court granted the suppression motion after a hearing. The Appellate Term affirmed the Criminal Court’s order. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the observation of a glassine envelope exchange in a high-crime area, combined with the defendant’s actions after receiving the envelope, constitutes probable cause for an arrest.

    Holding

    No, because the mere passing of a glassine envelope in a high-crime area, without additional suspicious behavior or circumstances, is insufficient to establish probable cause.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that probable cause requires facts and circumstances known to the officer that would warrant a prudent person in believing that an offense has been committed. The court acknowledged that a high crime rate is a relevant circumstance to be considered. However, the court deferred to the Criminal Court’s factual findings, noting that the Criminal Court did not fully credit the officer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s actions and the appearance of the envelope. The court distinguished this case from *People v. Quinones*, where a narcotics expert observed multiple glassine envelopes being exchanged at close range after suspicious interactions. Here, the court found that the observation of a single glassine envelope exchange, without more, was insufficient to elevate suspicion to probable cause. The court stated 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 also cited *People v. Brown*, where a high crime area, a suspected narcotic addict, and a meeting were deemed insufficient for probable cause. The Court of Appeals reiterated its limited power to review questions of fact, emphasizing its role is to determine whether the facts, as found by the lower courts, constitute probable cause as a matter of law. The court’s decision highlights the necessity of specific, articulable facts beyond generalized suspicion to justify an arrest and search.

  • People v. Santiago, 13 N.Y.2d 326 (1963): Establishing Reasonable Cause for Warrantless Searches Based on Informant Tips

    People v. Santiago, 13 N.Y.2d 326 (1963)

    A warrantless search is lawful if incident to a lawful arrest, and an arrest is lawful if officers have reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed and the defendant committed it; this reasonable cause can be based on a reliable informant’s tip, especially when corroborated by other factors.

    Summary

    These consolidated appeals address the legality of searches without warrants in two separate narcotics cases. In People v. Santiago, the court upheld the conviction, finding the search was justified by reliable information from a known drug addict corroborated by police investigation. In People v. Martin, the court reversed the conviction, deeming the search illegal because it was based on unverified information from an unreliable informant and involved an unlawful intrusion into a building. The differing factual scenarios highlight the importance of corroboration and the manner of entry in determining the legality of a warrantless search.

    Facts

    People v. Santiago: Police officers, acting on information from Elfman, a known drug addict seeking leniency, identified Lee Santiago as her narcotics supplier. Elfman provided Santiago’s address, phone number, and car description. After confirming the phone number and overhearing Elfman arrange a drug purchase with someone she called “Lee,” officers followed Elfman to Santiago’s apartment. Elfman signaled to the officers that narcotics were present, and the officers entered the apartment where they observed Santiago discard glassine envelopes containing heroin. Santiago admitted the drugs belonged to her.

    People v. Martin: Police officers, after arresting Robert Void on unrelated charges, received information from him about narcotics being cut up at an apartment on Edgecomb Avenue. Void described the occupant as a woman named Rose and advised that entry should not be made from the front. Without verifying Void’s information, officers entered the building by forcing open a skylight. They saw narcotics in an apartment through an open door. Rosalee Martin was later arrested in another apartment and charged with possession of the drugs found in the Edgecomb Avenue apartment.

    Procedural History

    People v. Santiago: Santiago was convicted of felonious possession of narcotics in the Supreme Court, New York County. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction. The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    People v. Martin: Martin was convicted of felonious possession of a narcotic drug with intent to sell in the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction. The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. People v. Santiago: Whether the warrantless search of Santiago’s apartment was justified by reasonable cause based on information from an informant.

    2. People v. Martin: Whether the search of the Edgecomb Avenue apartment was legal, considering the unverified information from the informant and the manner of entry.

    Holding

    1. People v. Santiago: Yes, because the officers had reasonable cause to believe Santiago was committing a felony based on the informant’s information, which was corroborated by their own investigation.

    2. People v. Martin: No, because the informant’s story was not checked against any previous experience with him or against any objective facts, and the evidence was obtained by an illegal and forceful intrusion into the building.

    Court’s Reasoning

    People v. Santiago: The Court of Appeals emphasized that the legality of the search hinged on whether the officers had reasonable cause to believe that Santiago possessed narcotics with intent to sell. The court found that reasonable cause existed because the officers knew Elfman as a narcotics user and seller, knew of Santiago’s reputation as a seller, verified the phone number Elfman provided, and overheard a phone conversation arranging a drug purchase. The court cited People v. Coffey, stating that “Substantiation of information can come either from the informer’s own character and reputation or from the separate, objective checking of the tale he tells.” The court distinguished this case from situations where an informer’s story is the sole basis for reasonable belief, emphasizing the corroborating evidence in this case.

    People v. Martin: The Court of Appeals found the search illegal for two primary reasons. First, the information provided by Void, the informant, was not adequately checked or corroborated. The officers had no prior experience with Void and did not verify his claims before acting on them. Second, the officers gained access to the apartment building through an illegal, forceful intrusion by breaking open a skylight. The court emphasized that such an intrusion into a residential building without a warrant or exigent circumstances is unlawful, citing Johnson v. United States and other cases. The court stated that acting on untested information from a person whose reliability was not otherwise confirmed, combined with the illegal entry, rendered the search unconstitutional.