The People, Respondent,v.Graham Reid, Appellant.BriefN.Y.November 18, 2014 APL-2013-00155 COVER Court of Appeals STATE OF NEW YORK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - GRAHAM REID, Defendant-Appellant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO AMICUS CURIAE SUBMISSION CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. District Attorney New York County Attorney for Respondent One Hogan Place New York, New York 10013 Telephone: (212) 335-9000 Facsimile: (212) 335-9288 danyappeals@dany.nyc.gov VINCENT RIVELLESE RICHARD NAHAS ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS Of Counsel OCTOBER 17, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. ii RESPONSE TO AMICUS CURIAE SUBMISSION ..................................................... 1 A. The amicus is mistaken that Knowles v. Iowa requires a police officer to have the intention to arrest a suspect before he can conduct a pre-arrest search. ......... 1 B. Affirmance will not invite illegal “exploratory searches.” .................................... 6 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 8 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) .................................................................................. 4 Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998) .............................................................................. 1-4 Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) ....................................................................... 3-5 Scallion v. City of Hawthorne, 280 Fed. Appx. 671 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................ 4 United States v. Abney, 496 Fed. Appx. 248 (3d Cir. 2012) ............................................. 4 United States v. Brooks, 290 Fed. Appx. 955 (8th Cir. 2008) ........................................... 4 United States v. Currence, 446 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2006) ................................................... 4 United States v. Frazier, 249 Fed. Appx. 396 (6th Cir. 2007) ........................................... 4 United States v. Hernandez, 825 F.2d 846 (5th Cir. 1987) ............................................... 4 United States v. Ibnawaan Safeeullah, 453 Fed. Appx. 944 (11th Cir.), cert. denied. 132 S.Ct. 1944 (2012) ................................................................................. 4 United States v. Joseph, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34063 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2012) .................................................................................................. 4 United States v. Kelly, 267 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2003) .................................................. 4 United States v. Lawlor, 406 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2005) ......................................................... 4 United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d 996 (10th Cir. Utah 1999) .............................................. 4 United States v. Montgomery, 377 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2004) ............................................ 4 United States v. Powell, 483 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .................................................... 4 United States v. Whitsett, 207 Fed. Appx. 723 (7th Cir. 2006) ........................................ 4 United States v. Williams, 170 Fed. Appx. 399 (6th Cir. 2006) ........................................ 4 United States v. Wilson, 94 Fed. Appx. 14 (2d Cir. 2004) ................................................ 4 Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) ................................................................... 2-3 -ii- STATE CASES Coley v. State, 886 A.2d 1277 (Del. 2005) ........................................................................... 5 Commonwealth v. Friel, 234 A.2d 22 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1967) ................................................ 5 Commonwealth v. Jackson, 985 N.E.2d 853 (Mass. 2013) ............................................... 5 Commonwealth v. Marshall, 319 S.W.3d 352 (Ky. 2010) ................................................. 5 Conboy v. State, 843 A.2d 216 (Md. Ct. of Spec. App. 2004) .......................................... 5 Ellis v. State, 573 So. 2d 724 (Miss. 1990) ........................................................................... 5 Enamorado v. State, 534 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. 1989) .............................................................. 5 State in Interest of C., 636 P.2d 1044 (Utah 1981) ............................................................ 5 Jenkins v. State, 978 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2008) ........................................................................ 5 Joyce v. Commonwealth, 696 S.E.2d 237 (Va. 2010) ........................................................ 5 Millet v. United States, 977 A.2d 932 (D.C. 2009) ............................................................. 5 People v. Chavez, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1024 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Feb. 13, 2014) .................................................................................. 5 People v. Cruz, 43 N.Y.2d 786 (1977) ................................................................................. 3 People v. Erwin, 42 N.Y.2d 1064 (1977) ............................................................................. 3 People v. Evans, 43 N.Y.2d 160 (1977) ........................................................................ 3-4, 6 People v. Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689 (2d Dept. 1989) ....................................................... 6 People v. Guzman, 116 A.D.2d 528 (1st Dept. 1986) ....................................................... 6 People v. Hadley, 67 A.D.2d 259 (4th Dept. 1979) ........................................................... 6 People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369 (1983) ............................................................................... 3 People v. Little, 750 N.E.2d 745 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) ......................................................... 5 People v. McNeil, 12 Misc. 3d 144(A) (N.Y. App. Term 2006) ....................................... 6 People v. Mitchell, 104 A.D.2d 689 (3d Dept. 1984) ......................................................... 6 -iii- People v. Nguyen, 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 1213 (Mich. Ct. App. June 24, 2014) ....................................................................................... 5 People v. Novitskiy, 310 P.3d 238 (Col. Ct. App. 2012) ................................................... 5 People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341 (2001) ......................................................................... 3 People v. Simon, 290 P.2d 531 (Cal. 1955) ......................................................................... 5 People v. Valenzuela, 226 A.D.2d 154 (1st Dept. 1996) ................................................... 6 Ramos v. State, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 2353 (Tex. App. Dallas Mar. 31, 1999) .................................................................................... 5 State v. Abrams, 2008-Ohio-94 (Ohio Ct. of App., Clermont County Jan. 14, 2008) .................................................... 5 State v. Bartelson, 704 N.W.2d 824 (N.Dak. 2005) ........................................................... 5 State v. Belcourt, 425 A.2d 1224 (R.I. 1981) ....................................................................... 5 State v. Blakely, 420 N.W.2d 300 (Neb. 1988) .................................................................... 5 State v. Bone, 550 S.E.2d 482 (N.C. 2001).......................................................................... 5 State v. Bonillas, 3 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999) .......................................................... 5 State v. Brooks, 634 A.2d 1265 (Me. 1993) ......................................................................... 5 State v. Chapman, 194 P.3d 550 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008) ................................................... 5 State v. Clark, 764 A.2d 1251 (Conn. 2001) ........................................................................ 5 State v. Cobb, 2001 UT App 374 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) ................................................... 5 State v. Conn, 99 P.3d 1108 (Kan. 2004) ............................................................................ 5 State v. Cornell, 491 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) ................................................. 5 State v. DeGrenier, 517 A.2d 814 (N.H. 1986) .................................................................. 5 State v. Delmondo, 512 P.2d 551 (Haw. 1973) .................................................................. 5 State v. Denk, 758 N.W.2d 775 (Wis. 2008) ....................................................................... 5 -iv- State v. Galvan, 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2660 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2013) ...................................................................................... 5 State v. Guzman, 965 A.2d 544 (Vt. 2008) .......................................................................... 5 State v. Haverluk, 617 N.W.2d 652 (N.Dak. 2000) ............................................................ 5 State v. Horton, 625 N.W.2d 362 (Iowa 2001) ................................................................... 5 State v. Jones, 678 N.E.2d 285 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) ....................................................... 5 State v. Joubert, 20 P.3d 1115 (Alaska 2001) ...................................................................... 5 State v. Lane, 621 S.E.2d 862 (Ga. 2005) ............................................................................ 5 State v. Mager, 2013 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1051 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2013) ...................................................................................... 5 State v. McGraw, 1 So. 3d 645 (La. Ct. App. 2008) ........................................................... 5 State v. Meadors, 580 P.2d 903 (Mont. 1978) ..................................................................... 5 State v. Menzies, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 20, 2000) .................................................................................. 5 State v. O’Neal, 921 A.2d 1079 (N.J. 2007) ........................................................................ 5 State v. Rubio, 89 P.3d 1184 (Or. 2004) .............................................................................. 5 State v. Smith, 851 N.W.2d 719 (S.Dak. 2014) ................................................................... 5 State v. Weidner, 158 P.3d 1025 (New Mex. Ct. App. 2007) ............................................ 5 Thornton v. State, 144 S.W.3d 766 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) ................................................. 5 Tolbert v. State, 111 So. 3d 747 (Ala. Crim. Ct. App. 2011) ............................................. 5 Warden v. State, 379 S.W.2d 788 (Tenn. 1964) .................................................................. 5 Williams v. State, 763 So. 2d 202 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).................................................... 5 -v- COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, -against- GRAHAM REID, Defendant-Appellant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO AMICUS CURIAE SUBMISSION Pursuant to Rule 500.12(f) of this Court, the People of the State of New York respectfully submit this response to the brief filed in support of defendant-appellant by the New York Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae. A. The amicus is mistaken that Knowles v. Iowa requires a police officer to have the intention to arrest a suspect before he can conduct a pre-arrest search. The amicus contends that affirming the police pat-down of the defendant in this case – where the police officer had no intention of arresting him before he conducted the search -- would run afoul of Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998). See Amicus Br. at 7-8. According to the amicus, Knowles “teaches that intent to arrest is an unquestionable prerequisite to invocation of the search incident to arrest exception to the search warrant requirement.” Id. at 8. In fact, Knowles imposed no such prerequisite. Knowles was a “search incident to citation” case: under Iowa law, police officers could search a driver after electing not to make an arrest and instead issue him a citation. The Supreme Court held that Iowa’s “citation exception” to the search warrant requirement did not pass constitutional muster because the act of issuing a citation precluded “the two historical rationales” for the search incident to arrest exception – the need to disarm a suspect and to preserve evidence – from arising to any meaningful degree. Knowles, 525 U.S. at 116.1 In reaching that conclusion, the Court did not mention or discuss the intention of the police officer. Nor did it need to: It simply engaged in an objective analysis of the police-citizen encounter to determine whether the traditional concerns justifying the warrant exception in search cases were present during that type of encounter. The Supreme Court’s analysis eschewing subjective considerations is entirely consistent with the view that it had expressed two years before the Knowles decision, that “[s]ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996). It is also consistent with this Court’s declining to import subjective considerations into its Fourth Amendment 1 In Knowles, the police officer searched the suspect before arresting him. However, the Supreme Court did not address the search-arrest sequence issue, let alone indicate that the order of events posed a problem. -2- analyses. See People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 350 (2001) (“basing the constitutional validity of searches or seizures on judicial determinations of the subjective motivation of police officers” would be “difficult[ ], if not futil[e]”). The amicus also mistakenly argues that in two cases where this Court endorsed searches preceding arrests, People v. Cruz, 43 N.Y.2d 786 (1977) and People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369 (1983), it was significant that the arresting officers in those cases did not say that when they searched the suspect they had no intention of arresting him. Amicus Br. at 11. But the officers’ intentions were no more determinative of the legality of the searches in those cases than in Knowles. Both Cruz and Landy simply relied on the rule set forth in People v. Evans, 43 N.Y.2d 160, 162 (1977), that where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, they may search him before arresting him if the subsequent arrest is reasonably contemporaneous.2 The amicus brief does not address Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111 (1980), in which the Supreme Court held that where the formal arrest follows quickly on the heels of the challenged search, the sequence is not “particularly important.” Certainly, Rawlings remains good law even after Knowles, which anteceded it by 18 2 The amicus contends that this Court implicitly engaged in a subjective inquiry in Evans and People v. Erwin, 42 N.Y.2d 1064 (1977). See Amicus Br. at 8-9. As we pointed out in our main brief, see Respondent’s Br. at 25, to the extent that Erwin appeared to engage in such an inquiry, it should be disregarded as inconsistent with Whren and People v. Robinson, which it predated. The contention that Evans performed the subjective inquiry the amicus is advocating finds no support in that decision. -3- years. Unlike Knowles, the suspect in Rawlings was not searched “incident to a citation,” but to the arrest which immediately followed the search. Unsurprisingly, federal courts have found no conflict between Knowles and Rawlings regarding search incident to arrest law. See e.g., United States v. Williams, 170 Fed. Appx. 399, 404-06 (6th Cir. 2006) overruled in part Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343 (2009); United States v. Montgomery, 377 F.3d 582, 586 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Kelly, 267 F. Supp. 2d 5, 13 (D.D.C. 2003). Allowing searches to precede arrest under the conditions that Evans spelled out is not a minority view among federal or state courts. It is the law in all twelve federal circuits.3 Forty-three states, as well as the District of Columbia, also allow incident searches to precede the arrest. Many of the state decisions adopting that position were issued after the Supreme Court’s 1998 Knowles decision. More often than not, they expressly adopt the Rawlings view that when there is probable cause to conduct a 3 See, e.g., United States v. Lawlor, 406 F.3d 37, 42 (1st Cir. 2005); United States v. Wilson, 94 Fed. Appx. 14, 17 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Abney, 496 Fed. Appx. 248, 254 (3d Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Joseph, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34063 *8 fn.1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2012); United States v. Currence, 446 F.3d 554, 557 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hernandez, 825 F.2d 846, 852 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Frazier, 249 Fed. Appx. 396, 403 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Whitsett, 207 Fed. Appx. 723 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Brooks, 290 Fed. Appx. 955, 960 (8th Cir. 2008); Scallion v. City of Hawthorne, 280 Fed. Appx. 671, 672-73 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d 996, 1003 (10th Cir. Utah 1999); United States v. Ibnawaan Safeeullah, 453 Fed. Appx. 944, 946 (11th Cir.) cert. denied. 132 S.Ct. 1944 (2012); United States v. Powell, 483 F.3d 836, 840 (D.C. Cir. 2007). -4- search incident to arrest, the particular search-arrest sequence is of no constitutional significance.4 4 See Tolbert v. State, 111 So. 3d 747 (Ala. Crim. Ct. App. 2011) (adopting Rawlings); State v. Joubert, 20 P.3d 1115, 1118 (Alaska 2001); State v. Bonillas, 3 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999); Thornton v. State, 144 S.W.3d 766 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (adopting Rawlings); People v. Simon, 290 P.2d 531 (Cal. 1955); see also People v. Chavez, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1024 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Feb. 13, 2014); People v. Novitskiy, 310 P.3d 238 (Col. Ct. App. 2012); State v. Clark, 764 A.2d 1251 (Conn. 2001); Coley v. State, 886 A.2d 1277 (Del. 2005) (adopting Rawlings); Millet v. United States, 977 A.2d 932, 935 (D.C. 2009) (citing Rawlings with approval); Jenkins v. State, 978 So. 2d 116, 126 (Fla. 2008) (citing Rawlings with approval); State v. Lane, 621 S.E.2d 862 (Ga. 2005) (adopting Rawlings); State v. Delmondo, 512 P.2d 551 (Haw. 1973); State v. Chapman, 194 P.3d 550 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008) (adopting Rawlings); People v. Little, 750 N.E.2d 745 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (adopting Rawlings); Enamorado v. State, 534 N.E.2d 740, 743 (Ind. 1989); State v. Horton, 625 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Iowa 2001) (adopting Rawlings); State v. Conn, 99 P.3d 1108 (Kan. 2004) (adopting Rawlings); Commonwealth v. Marshall, 319 S.W.3d 352, 361 (Ky. 2010) (adopting Rawlings); State v. McGraw, 1 So. 3d 645, 655 (La. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Rawlings with approval); State v. Brooks, 634 A.2d 1265 (Me. 1993); Conboy v. State, 843 A.2d 216 (Md. Ct. of Spec. App. 2004); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 985 N.E.2d 853 (Mass. 2013); People v. Nguyen, 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 1213 *19 (Mich. Ct. App. June 24, 2014) (adopting Rawlings); State v. Cornell, 491 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (citing Rawlings with approval); see also State v. Mager, 2013 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1051 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2013); Ellis v. State, 573 So. 2d 724, 726 (Miss. 1990) (adopting Rawlings); see also Williams v. State, 763 So. 2d 202, 205 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (adopting Rawlings); State v. Meadors, 580 P.2d 903 (Mont. 1978); State v. Blakely, 420 N.W.2d 300 (Neb. 1988); State v. DeGrenier, 517 A.2d 814 (N.H. 1986); State v. O’Neal, 921 A.2d 1079 (N.J. 2007)(citing Rawlings with approval); State v. Weidner, 158 P.3d 1025 (New Mex. Ct. App. 2007) (adopting Rawlings); State v. Bone, 550 S.E.2d 482 (N.C. 2001) (adopting Rawlings); State v. Bartelson, 704 N.W.2d 824 (N.Dak. 2005); see also State v. Haverluk, 617 N.W.2d 652 (N.Dak. 2000) (applying Rawlings); State v. Jones, 678 N.E.2d 285 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996); see also State v. Abrams, 2008-Ohio-94 (Ohio Ct. of App., Clermont County Jan. 14, 2008) (citing Rawlings with approval); State v. Rubio, 89 P.3d 1184 (Or. 2004); Commonwealth v. Friel, 234 A.2d 22 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1967); State v. Belcourt, 425 A.2d 1224 (R.I. 1981); State v. Smith, 851 N.W.2d 719 (S.Dak. 2014) (adopting Rawlings); Warden v. State, 379 S.W.2d 788 (Tenn. 1964); see also State v. Menzies, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 20, 2000) (adopting Rawlings); Ramos v. State, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 2353 *5 (Tex. App. Dallas Mar. 31, 1999) (adopting Rawlings); State in Interest of C., 636 P.2d 1044 (Utah 1981); State v. Cobb, 2001 UT App 374 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (adopting Rawlings); Joyce v. Commonwealth, 696 S.E.2d 237 (Va. 2010) (adopting Rawlings) (adopting Rawlings); State v. Guzman, 965 A.2d 544 (Vt. 2008); State v. Galvan, 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2660 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2013); State v. Denk, 758 N.W.2d 775 (Wis. 2008). -5- B. Affirmance will not invite illegal “exploratory searches.” The amicus brief predicts that “unjustified exploratory searches” by the police would “become the norm” if the Court were to endorse the rule that a search incident to arrest may legally occur before the arrest, when there is pre-existing probable cause and the search and the arrest are nearly contemporaneous. Amicus Br. at 14. Specifically, the amicus claims that the rule would allow invasive searches of the “hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who receive summonses for arrestable offenses annually” in connection with quality-of-life offenses. Id. at 12, 13. In raising this specter, the amicus ignores that all four Appellate Divisions have long understood Evans to allow a search to precede an arrest if there is antecedent probable cause and the arrest is contemporaneous with the search. The First Department has applied that rule for at least 19 years, see People v. Valenzuela, 226 A.D.2d 154 (1st Dept. 1996); see also People v. Guzman, 116 A.D.2d 528, 531 (1st Dept. 1986); the Second Department for 26 years, see People v. Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689 (2d Dept. 1989); see also People v. McNeil, 12 Misc. 3d 144(A) (N.Y. App. Term 2006); the Third Department for 30 years, see People v. Mitchell, 104 A.D.2d 689, 691 (3d Dept. 1984); and the Fourth Department for 35 years. See People v. Hadley, 67 A.D.2d 259, 263 (4th Dept. 1979). Obviously, if adoption of the rule could unleash the torrent of unconstitutional intrusions the amicus warns about, that would already have happened. The amicus offers no evidence, anecdotal or statistical, that it has. -6- In short, affirmance of defendant’s conviction does not require expanding search incident law in New York. To the contrary, it is the amicus and defendant who seek to restrict what has been the rule that courts have been applying in this state for decades.5 They have presented no good reason for this Court to do so. * * * In sum, the timing of a police officer’s formation of the intent to arrest is completely irrelevant to whether a search preceding an arrest is proper. Nor is there any reason to expect that upholding the search in this case will open the door to a flood of intrusions on the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens. 5 Ironically, the new rule sought by the amicus and defendant would give the police incentive to execute formal arrests in all cases upon obtaining probable cause, in order to avoid losing evidence they had sufficient probable cause to gather on the ground that they exercised restraint. -7- CONCLUSION The Appellate Division’s order should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, CYRUS R. VANCE District Attorney New York County By: VINCENT RIVELLESE RICHARD NAHAS Assistant District Attorneys Of Counsel ___________________________ Richard Nahas October 17, 2014 -8-