46 N.Y.2d 82 (1978)

A warrantless search of luggage is permissible if it is incident to a lawful arrest, contemporaneous in time and place with the arrest, and does not exceed constitutional limits.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a warrantless search of a suitcase, conducted incident to a lawful arrest, was constitutional. The court held that the search was permissible because it was closely connected in time and place to the arrest, and the scope and intensity of the search were reasonable. The court distinguished this case from *United States v. Chadwick*, emphasizing the immediacy of the search to the arrest and the continued presence of the defendant. This case clarifies the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest in New York, especially concerning luggage and personal belongings.

Facts

A United Airlines ticket agent in San Diego became suspicious of De Santis and his companion due to their anxious behavior and the large wad of hundred-dollar bills used to purchase tickets. The agent inspected their unlocked suitcases and discovered what appeared to be marihuana. The agent notified federal drug enforcement authorities, providing them with the suspects’ descriptions, luggage details, flight information, and baggage claim ticket number. This information was relayed to authorities in Buffalo. Upon arrival in Buffalo, federal agents observed De Santis retrieve the suitcase matching the provided claim number. After a brief encounter initiated by an agent, De Santis was arrested by an Erie County Deputy Sheriff.

Procedural History

De Santis was convicted in a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second and fifth degrees. He appealed, arguing that the warrantless search of his suitcase was unconstitutional under *United States v. Chadwick*. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. De Santis then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the warrantless search of De Santis’s suitcase at the airport substation, immediately following his lawful arrest, was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, considering the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Chadwick*.

Holding

No, because the search was incident to a lawful arrest and was closely connected in time and place to the arrest. The search’s scope, intensity, and duration did not exceed constitutional limits.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that warrantless searches are generally prohibited under the Fourth Amendment but are permissible under specific exceptions, including searches incident to a lawful arrest. Such searches are justified to protect the safety of the arresting officer, prevent escape, or prevent the destruction of evidence. The court emphasized that, following a lawful arrest, a contemporaneous search of the arrestee and their possessions at hand constitutes a minimal additional intrusion on privacy. The court distinguished this case from *United States v. Chadwick*, where the search of the footlocker occurred an hour and a half after the arrest, away from the arrestees, and at police headquarters. In contrast, De Santis’s suitcase was searched immediately upon arrest in a private airport room, with De Santis present. The court stated: “To be sure, the arrest of defendant, standing alone, did not destroy whatever privacy interests he had in the contents of the suitcase. It did, however – at least for a reasonable time and to a reasonable extent – subsume those interests into the legitimate governmental interest in discovering weapons, thwarting access to means of escape and preventing the destruction or secretion of evidence.” The court concluded that the close nexus between the arrest and the suitcase search made the search reasonable under the circumstances. The dissent argued that the facts were indistinguishable from *Chadwick*, and the search was therefore illegal.