People v. Weintraub, 35 N.Y.2d 351 (1974)

A warrantless search incident to a lawful custodial arrest extends to personal effects of the arrestee that are “ready to hand,” regardless of a later judicial determination of the probability of finding weapons or evidence.

Summary

Weintraub was arrested for criminal trespass. A contemporaneous search of an attaché case he was carrying revealed stolen checks, airline tickets, and credit cards. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the warrantless search of the attaché case was constitutionally permissible as a search incident to a lawful arrest. The Court held that it was, reasoning that the authority to search incident to a lawful custodial arrest extends to items within the arrestee’s immediate control, regardless of the likelihood of finding specific evidence related to the crime of arrest. This case clarifies the scope of searches incident to arrest in New York, particularly distinguishing it from traffic offense cases and aligning it with federal standards.

Facts

Police officers found Weintraub in a closed, vandalized parking garage, sitting in a car belonging to Sal Cirella. Weintraub claimed he had Cirella’s permission, but Cirella denied this. Nothing was missing from the car. Because Weintraub could not explain his presence, officers arrested him for criminal trespass. Incident to the arrest, officers searched a closed attaché case Weintraub had been carrying and discovered checks, airline tickets, and credit cards made out to different people.

Procedural History

Weintraub was charged with criminally possessing stolen property. He moved to suppress the contents of the attaché case, but the motion was denied, and he pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the warrantless search of the defendant’s attaché case, conducted incident to a lawful custodial arrest for criminal trespass, was a constitutionally permissible search.

Holding

Yes, because the authority to search incident to a lawful custodial arrest extends to personal effects within the arrestee’s immediate control, and this authority does not depend on a later determination of the probability of finding specific evidence.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the search was justified as incident to a lawful custodial arrest. The court distinguished this case from prior New York cases, such as People v. Marsh and People v. Adams, which limited searches incident to arrest for traffic offenses. The Court emphasized that those cases were based on the unique nature of traffic offenses and did not apply to a custodial arrest for criminal trespass. Relying on United States v. Robinson, the court stated that the justification for a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest stems from the arrest itself, based on the need to disarm the suspect and to discover or preserve evidence. The Court stated, “The lawful custodial arrest being a constitutionally reasonable intrusion upon the defendant’s privacy, the search incident requires no additional justification. (United States v. Robinson, supra, at p. 235.)” The Court further noted that the search could include personal effects of the arrestee that are “ready to hand”. The Court acknowledged that a less intrusive action—seizing the attaché case without searching it—was possible. However, it found no constitutional requirement for officers to choose the least intrusive method when conducting a search incident to arrest. The Court concluded that the search of the attaché case was a permissible search incident to a lawful custodial arrest, and the evidence found therein was admissible. The court remitted the case to the Appellate Division for a determination of the facts.