People v. M&M, 86 N.Y.2d 974 (1995)

Evidence found in plain view inside a vehicle, coupled with probable cause, justifies a warrantless search of the vehicle.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction, holding that the warrantless search of his car was justified under the plain view doctrine. Police officers, responding to a report of assault and a threat involving a gun, accompanied the complainant to her apartment to arrest the defendant. After failing to find the gun in the apartment, the complainant suggested it might be in the defendant’s car. An officer, using a flashlight, saw what appeared to be heroin in plain view inside the car. This observation, along with the stolen license plates, provided probable cause for the search, making the evidence admissible.

Facts

The complainant reported to police that her boyfriend, the defendant, had assaulted her and threatened her with a gun.

Four police officers accompanied the complainant to her apartment to arrest the defendant and search for the gun.

During the arrest, keys with the defendant’s name fell from his clothing; he identified them as keys to his red Chevy parked across the street.

A search of the apartment, with the complainant’s consent, did not reveal the gun.

The complainant suggested the defendant may have placed the gun in his car.

Shining a flashlight into the car, an officer saw a vinyl bag containing a clear plastic bag with a brown substance resembling heroin.

A check of the license plates revealed they were stolen. The officers then unlocked the car and recovered drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Procedural History

The defendant moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing he did not consent to the search and that his statements were involuntary. County Court denied the motion.

The defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and second-degree criminal use of drug paraphernalia.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle was justified under the plain view doctrine and whether there was probable cause to conduct the search.

Holding

Yes, because the heroin was in plain view on the front seat of the car, and the police had probable cause to enter the automobile once they observed the substance that reasonably appeared to be heroin.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that the heroin was in plain view and lawfully viewed by the police, referencing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 and People v. Diaz, 81 N.Y.2d 106, 110-112. The court stated, “Irrespective of the standard for determining the voluntariness of defendant’s consent… we determine that there is evidence in the record to support the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the heroin was in plain view on the front seat of the car and thus lawfully viewed by the police in response to complainant’s information that the gun might be found there.”

The court reasoned that after observing what reasonably appeared to be heroin and discovering that the license plates were stolen, the police officers had probable cause to enter the automobile.

The court emphasized that the officers were responding to the complainant’s information about the gun, providing a legitimate reason to approach the vehicle. The plain view observation of the heroin then justified the subsequent search.

The court distinguished the case from situations where police lack a legitimate reason to be in the position to observe the evidence in plain view. Here, the officers’ presence was directly related to the investigation of the reported assault and threat.

The court explicitly stated, “Once they observed the plastic bag containing what reasonably appeared to be heroin, the police officers had probable cause to enter the automobile.” This highlights the critical role of probable cause in justifying the warrantless search.