Summary
In Binns, the primary evidence was a key seized unlawfully from the defendant and used, along with information from other sources, to locate the defendant's apartment and to obtain a search warrant for that apartment, which was found to contain drugs and money.
Summary of this case from People v. LindseyOpinion
No. 11723
Decided and Entered: November 14, 2002
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered November 12, 1999, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Ralph Cherchian, Albany, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen D. Ferri of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 8, 1998, Johnson City police officers and other agencies executed a search warrant at an apartment at 136 Lester Avenue in the Village of Johnson City, Broome County, where they discovered defendant and four other individuals. The officers uncovered a quantity of cocaine which was found in different rooms of the apartment, including in a cigarette pack on the floor of the living room. Defendant, who was not a tenant of this apartment, was in the living room. Defendant was searched pursuant to the warrant and police uncovered a set of keys. When questioned by the police, defendant gave his name, but told the police that he lived in New York City. However, two occupants of the apartment told the police that defendant resided next door at 140 Lester Avenue, at which point several police officers took defendant's keys to 140 Lester Avenue, tested a key in the front door lock and found that it worked. The police did not enter the apartment but secured the premises and obtained a search warrant for that apartment. In the course of the search of defendant's apartment, police uncovered a quantity of cocaine, a digital scale and $2,020.
In March 1999, defendant was indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Following a pretrial suppression hearing, County Court suppressed the key and all references to it, holding that the key had been "illegally and impermissibly seized from the defendant." However, the court decided that evidence seized at 140 Lester Avenue during the search pursuant to the warrant was admissible because the warrant was supported by an independent source who provided probable cause that defendant resided at and stored cocaine there. Prior to the start of jury selection for defendant's first trial, County Court reversed parts of its previous suppression rulings, and decided, inter alia, that although the police had illegally obtained the key, it would have been discovered upon a detailed search of defendant pursuant to his arrest and thus the key would be admissible under the "inevitable discovery rule." Upon the second trial, defendant was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to 6 to 12 years on each count. Defendant appeals.
The first trial resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial was declared on September 29, 1999.
Initially, we find that, to the extent that the police exercised dominion and control over the key after it was taken from defendant by taking it to the apartment at 140 Lester Street, inserting the key into the lock and unlocking the door to that apartment, there is merit to defendant's argument that the taking of the key by the police constitutes an illegal seizure. The People's argument to the contrary is, therefore, rejected. However, since the police only secured and did not search defendant's apartment until they had obtained a search warrant (see People v. Arnau, 58 N.Y.2d 27, 35, cert denied 468 U.S. 1217; but see People v. Burr, 70 N.Y.2d 354, 360 , cert denied 485 U.S. 989), we reject defendant's argument that the evidence recovered therein must be suppressed as the "fruits of an illegal search." Rather, "where the evidence sought to be suppressed is the product of an independent source entirely free and distinct from proscribed police activity, it should be admissible and not subject to a per se rule of exclusion based solely on the unlawful conduct" (People v. Arnau, supra at 35). In this case, the search warrant was obtained on the basis of information acquired from a reliable, confidential informant gathered prior to and independent of the entry. Furthermore, a review of the application for the warrant reveals that the confidential informant told the police, inter alia, that he had seen defendant "in possession of crack cocaine coming and going from 140 Lester Avenue." Thus, County Court properly determined that the search warrant was valid (see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108; see also Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410; People v. Lisk, 216 A.D.2d 851, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 904).
We further find that County Court properly admitted all evidence recovered pursuant to the warrant. The Court of Appeals has held that if tainted evidence would have been discovered pursuant to routine police procedures, the inevitable discovery rule will "permit the use of secondary evidence, obtained as a result of information gleaned from or by other exploitation of" the illegally obtained evidence (People v. Turriago, 90 N.Y.2d 77, 86). The burden is on the People to show by a "very high degree of probability that the evidence in question would have been obtained independently of the tainted source" (People v. Payton, 45 N.Y.2d 300, 313, revd on other grounds 445 U.S. 573; see People v. Stith, 69 N.Y.2d 313). Here, the police also had the information obtained from the confidential informant, which provided the probable cause for the issuance of the warrant for the search of defendant's apartment. Hence, the record supports a finding that the evidence found in defendant's apartment would inevitably have been discovered through a source that was independent of the initial taint.
We conclude, however, that County Court erred in deciding that the illegally seized key was admissible as evidence. It is well recognized that the doctrine of inevitable discovery "applies only to secondary evidence, not to the very items uncovered in an illegal search" (People v. Vega, 256 A.D.2d 730, 732, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 858; see People v. Turriago, supra at 86). "[P]rimary evidence, i.e., the `very evidence * * * obtained during or as the immediate consequence' of the illegal conduct, would still be subject to exclusion even if it would most likely have been discovered in the course of routine police procedures" (People v. Turriago, supra at 86, quoting People v. Stith, supra at 318).
Notwithstanding the constitutional error of admitting the illegally seized key in evidence, we find reversal is not required. "[A] constitutional error requires a reversal of a conviction and a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, `there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant's conviction'" (People v. Smith, 97 N.Y.2d 324, 330, quotingPeople v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237). Here, defendant's landlord identified defendant as the individual who had rented the subject apartment. The landlord testified that defendant indicated to him that he would be living alone and when defendant first leased the apartment, the landlord gave him a receipt for the rent and one key. Upon execution of the search warrant at 140 Lester Avenue, in addition to cocaine and drug paraphernalia, the police found a jacket containing over $2,000 in cash and a wallet containing a rent receipt from the landlord to defendant. Notwithstanding the connection of defendant to the apartment, defendant, upon his initial apprehension, denied living in the area and claimed that he was just visiting. In our opinion, the proof of defendant's guilt without reference to the key is overwhelming and the admission of the key therefore constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. "[T]here is no reasonable possibility that the [admission of the key] might have contributed to defendant's conviction because proof of defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming" (People v. Smith, supra at 330).
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.