People v. Troiano, 35 N.Y.2d 476 (1974)

A lawful arrest, even for a misdemeanor traffic violation, justifies a full search of the person incident to that arrest, as long as the person is being taken into custody.

Summary

Defendant Troiano was arrested on a warrant for driving with a suspended license. During the arrest, the officer frisked Troiano and discovered a loaded revolver. Troiano argued the search was unlawful because it stemmed from a traffic violation arrest. The New York Court of Appeals held that a full search is permissible incident to a lawful arrest, even for a misdemeanor traffic violation, provided the individual is being taken into custody. The court reasoned that the loss of privacy occurs upon the lawful taking into custody and that officers need to ensure their safety and the safety of others.

Facts

On January 8, 1969, Troiano was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued six days earlier for the misdemeanor of driving with a suspended or revoked license. The arresting officer showed Troiano the warrant and informed him he was under arrest. The officer then asked Troiano to place his hands on the police car and began a “search or frisk” of his person. During the frisk, the officer found a loaded revolver in Troiano’s waistband and confiscated it.

Procedural History

Troiano was indicted for possession of a loaded firearm. He moved to suppress the revolver, arguing the search was unlawful. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Troiano was found guilty after a jury trial and sentenced to imprisonment. The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction. Troiano then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a full search of the person is authorized as incident to a custodial detention for a misdemeanor traffic violation.

Holding

Yes, because so long as the person is being taken into custody, they have lost whatever interest in privacy they had before the arrest, and officers must ensure their safety and the safety of others during the arrest and detention process.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that once a person is lawfully arrested and taken into custody, their expectation of privacy diminishes significantly. The act of taking someone into custody itself is a substantial intrusion on their privacy. The court emphasized the need for officers to protect themselves and others from potential harm during the arrest and detention process. The court stated, “So long as the person is being taken into custody, he has lost whatever interest in privacy he had before arrest, the taking into custody itself being the grossest intrusion upon his privacy.” The court acknowledged the existence of less intrusive alternatives, such as summonses, but emphasized that once an arrest is made, the potential danger to the officer and others necessitates a thorough search. The court also noted the impracticality of distinguishing between “hard” and “soft” objects, as many seemingly harmless items can be used as weapons. The court also cited the need for an inventory search upon arrival at the place of detention for the safety of the arrestee, custodians, and fellow prisoners. The court suggested that limiting the right to arrest or take into custody is the only way to restrict unnecessarily intrusive personal searches.