SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1182 

KA 12-02264 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC L. WILCOX, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP,

BUFFALO (RYAN A. LEMA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ERIC L. WILCOX, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex

R. Renzi, J.), rendered October 3, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled

substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of

marihuana. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law, defendant’s motion to suppress

tangible evidence is granted in part, counts one, three, six, and

seven of the indictment are dismissed, and a new trial is granted on

count two. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of two counts of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1],

[12]), and one count each of criminal possession of a controlled

substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.06 [5]), criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03) and unlawful

possession of marihuana (§ 221.05). Defendant contends that Supreme

Court erred in refusing to suppress drugs seized by police officers

from the jacket he was wearing at the time he was arrested pursuant to

a warrant. We agree.

The record at the suppression hearing established that the

officers received information that defendant was at a particular

residential address, and they observed defendant inside that

residence, sleeping on a living room couch and wearing a black leather

jacket. The officers entered the residence, asked defendant to
-2- 1182 

KA 12-02264 

identify himself, and told defendant that he was under arrest. At

that point, defendant began fumbling with his jacket pocket, and a

pill bottle fell out of the pocket onto the couch. The officers

handcuffed defendant, and one of them examined the contents of the

pill bottle. The officer suspected that the pill bottle contained

heroin. Shortly thereafter, the officers removed defendant’s

handcuffs in order to remove his jacket. After securing the jacket,

the officers replaced the handcuffs on defendant and escorted him to

the rear seat of their patrol car. One of the officers placed the

jacket on the floor of the front seat of the patrol car, where it

remained while defendant was transported to the Public Safety

Building. Defendant was taken to an interview room, and the jacket

was searched in another room at the Public Safety Building. A variety

of drugs was discovered in the jacket pockets.

At the outset, we note that we may not address the People’s

contention that the court properly refused to suppress the drugs on

the ground that defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in

the clothing that he was wearing, inasmuch as the People did not rely

on that theory at the suppression hearing, and the court did not deny

suppression on that ground (see People v Thompson, 118 AD3d 922, 924).

Contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that the

warrantless search of defendant’s jacket was not justified as a search

incident to a lawful arrest. “Under the State Constitution, to

justify a warrantless search incident to an arrest, the People must

satisfy two separate requirements. The first imposes spatial and

temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly

divorced in time or place from the arrest . . . The second, and

equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the

presence of exigent circumstances” (People v Jimenez, 22 NY3d 717,

721-722 [internal quotation marks omitted]). We conclude that, here,

neither requirement is satisfied. At the time the jacket was

searched, defendant was handcuffed in an interview room at the Public

Safety Building. “[T]he jacket had been reduced to the exclusive

control of the police[,] and there was no reasonable possibility that

defendant could have reached it” (People v Morales, 126 AD3d 43, 46). 

Nor was there any exigency that would justify the warrantless search

of the jacket in these circumstances (see id. at 47; Thompson, 118

AD3d at 924; see also People v Boler, 106 AD3d 1119, 1123). We

therefore grant in part defendant’s motion seeking to suppress

tangible evidence, i.e., the drugs seized from his jacket, and we

reverse those parts of the judgment convicting him of the counts of

the indictment charging him with possessing those drugs, i.e., counts

one, three, six and seven.

Count two, the only remaining count, charges defendant with

knowingly and unlawfully possessing heroin with the intent to sell it

pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16 (1). The heroin that defendant was

accused of possessing under that count was found inside the pill

bottle that fell out of defendant’s jacket pocket shortly after the

officers’ entry into the living room. We conclude that the court

properly denied defendant’s motion to the extent that it sought

suppression of the heroin, which was lawfully seized incident to
-3- 1182 

KA 12-02264 

defendant’s arrest (see People v Smith, 59 NY2d 454, 458). Viewing

the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the

jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we further conclude

that the verdict on count two is not against the weight of the

evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We

nevertheless reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial

on that count because the evidence of defendant’s intent to sell,

“although legally sufficient, was not overwhelming and was largely

dependent upon” evidence of the quantity and variety of drugs

unlawfully seized from defendant’s jacket (People v Chambers, 73 AD2d

976, 976). We therefore conclude that the error in admitting that

evidence was not harmless with respect to count two of the indictment

(see generally People v Almestica, 42 NY2d 222, 227). 

In view of our decision, we do not address the remaining

contentions in defendant’s main and pro se supplemental briefs. 

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court